NZX - NZ Exchange

[ruaboy]

NZX Ltd are looking to ascertian who is, or may be a substantial security holder of NZX ordinary shares. Thats what the letter says.

[Under Surveillance]

From the look of section 35BA, NZX must think Ruaboy is a substantial holder who has not exposed himself:

35BA Offence for failure to comply with substantial holding disclosure obligation

• Every person who knows or ought to know information that the person is required to disclose under any of sections 22 to 25 and 34 to 35A, and who fails to disclose that information in accordance with a substantial holding disclosure obligation, commits an offence (seesection 43A for the maximum penalty of a $30,000 fine).
  

[Under Surveillance]

Well, in the absence of knowing the size of your shareholding, I'd send him a quick one line email acknowledging his email but that the size of your holding nowhere near meets disclosure levels and that no one else has an interest in your holding.

You've no problem if you hold less than 12.6 million shares, Ruaboy [5% of 253.7 million issued].

[ruaboy]

Thanks for that, I certainly am not a substantial holder so will ignore this threatening letter , if they want any information they should ask like normal people. Politely.

[CJ]

Just got a letter from a Philke Flitcroft analyst at NZX Limited demanding that I send him the name and adress of all relevant people with an relevant interest and the nature of this interest in NZX LTD , also wants email adress and age since the letter was adressed to me at the place I live and they send me emails this only leaves my age that must be of importance to the NZX . If I don't comply he says I may be committing an offence under section 35BA ( is BA short for bugger all) of the securties market act 1988.Any idea why this sudden interest in my age and the heavy handed letter.

What have you been doing to spark interest.

I didn't think there was any age restriction in owning shares. I know I held shares as a minor (may have had some tax advantages for my parents at the time. Note: I still hold at least one from back in those days, the former Brieleys now worth about $300).

[Under Surveillance]

What have you been doing to spark interest.

I didn't think there was any age restriction in owning shares. I know I held shares as a minor (may have had some tax advantages for my parents at the time. Note: I still hold at least one from back in those days, the former Brieleys now worth about $300).

I received today what seems to be the same letter as Ruaboy.
It is amateurish in the extreme, and officious.
For example, I am required to disclose my "Investor Type (retail/institutional/staff/board)". What sort of Analyst is NZX employing who lacks the competence to eliminate me as a member of the NZX board? or as a NZX staff member?
The "Age Demographic" choice is 20-40, 41-60, and 61+.
They sent the letter to my physical address, but require me to disclose this to them. This is Pythonesque.

The only thing I can think I have been doing to spark interest is to buy NZX shares recently. I now own about 0.02% of the company, so have another 4.98% to go before becoming a substantial security holder.

[macduffy]

Is it possible that NZX have something in their constitution that limits investment to certain "types" of investors, eg employees, overseas nationals etc and that they suspect that someone is trying to get around the limits by the use of nominees? Seems unlikely, I know, when you consider the previous CEO's big holding but after all, NZX is both the operator and referee in this game to an unhealthy degree.

[Silverlight]

Is it possible that NZX have something in their constitution that limits investment to certain "types" of investors, eg employees, overseas nationals etc and that they suspect that someone is trying to get around the limits by the use of nominees? Seems unlikely, I know, when you consider the previous CEO's big holding but after all, NZX is both the operator and referee in this game to an unhealthy degree.

Surely if NZX believed that someone was trying to do that they would just inform the FMA and let them do the work. If a person was in breach of the SSH regulations, it would be the person who did breach the law falling foul of the law, for not filing, rather than the company itself.

Furthermore if they were going to do that, would they not get the registry to do it, as they have list of all holders, they have to pay dividends to someone? (Maybe then filter by Custodians as they may have multiple underlying holders).

Under Surveillance/Ruaboy, curiously, do you hold your share through an advisor, custodian, or on a wrap platform, ie FNZ, AMP advisor, National Bank etc.?

[CJ]

Stupid question but are you sure it is from the NZX. Could it be an elaborate phishing scam?

Seems a one liner - "I am compliant" - should be a sufficient response.

[Jay]

Beat me to it CJ
I was thinking the same thing- probably got your details from the share registry

Where/how is he asking you to send him the info - is it their legitimate address or some email address (fake??)