Will it be found in the fiction section in the local library?
Printable View
Messianic delusions. Very expensive.
Got my copy of "Allan Hubbard: A Man Out of Time" today (by Virginia Green; ISBN 9781869794828).
Read the first five chapters, from the beginning ... but could not resist temptation. Skipped ahead to the end chapters on the the time leading up to the SCF administration.
Explosive stuff! The journo who did the recent review missed the significance of what has now been put into print!
Even the personal/family details included in the bio chapters would require significant bravery for Hubbard to reveal to a biographer. His life started out as a tragedy, it looks like it is also ending as one. What he did with the middle - the bit between the start and the finish - is a testament to his character.
I strongly recommend anyone interested in recent events to buy or borrow a copy (no, you can't have mine ... I'm going back to reading the chapters that I skipped over).
This quote is from the Allan Hubbard book:
The book puts the proposition of a "controlled demolition" of SCF; in a manner that minimises the political impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by "Allan Hubbard: A Man Out of Time" by Virginia Green
Clearly the Hubbard statutory management was a critical blow (if not the coup de grace) to SCF recovery prospects. Bill English, it seems, hid behind weasel words declaiming any responsibility - but it is clear that the secrecy of the Statutory Management process, in addition to the draconian powers, combine to allow faceless men in the shadows to assert fearful, unfetter and anti-democratic power.
Where are the SFO charges against Allan Hubbard?
Hubbard could have walked away from SCF - kept Dairy, Helicopters and Scales - and continued to be a wealthy man. He did not. This is the best argument against those who would impugn Hubbard's integrity.
He was betrayed by a vast number of people who were actually in a position to help ... The incompetence of his advisers ... The malice of politicians who feared SCF failure (and bailout) in an election year ...
Allan was destroyed by his work ethic and desire to "do good" with his money. He should not have lent his name to the doings of Lachie McLeod and Peter Bosworth. His board and his business partners could all have done more to assert governance - but what clumsy efforts were made were resisted by Allan.
David Baragwanath is quoted around some very fundamental legal rights based on the Magna Carta. I cannot help believe that the Judicary will be scathing on the application of Statutory Management - the government demolishes a business and then assumes control. The receivership, itself, is singular - it is highly unusual for an alleged "insolvent" finance company to be restored to operation and run by the receiver as manager. SCF mirrors Allan Hubbard's fate - to be taken over and run under government direction.
The "unblinking eyes" of Mordor, err Whellington, may be on the political risks associated with their inept regulation - but the eyes of democratic New Zealanders are also focused on the antics of those "grey men" hiding under the veil of their secret processes. In the privacy of a polling booth - we get to reflect and express an opinion on all of this ...
It is time to resolve the matter of Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard.
Lay charges - so we can bring the guilty to account - or make restitution by adopting a more sympathetic approach to the SCF receivership.
Almost inevitable that charges will be laid. Question of what and when. Too much is out in the public arena now for any cover-up.
One has to feel sorry for Allan - he simply had no idea of the mess he was in and the mess he had created. For example, the hyper-inflation in dairy farm prices in the Canterbury region can most certainly be directly attributed to his activities - as an investor and as a principal lender via SCF.
Recent treasury and other govt docs released recently suggests SCG was pretty near terminal well before the Stat Man. The Stat Man wasn't the critical blow - SCF was already on its knees well before then.
Clearly the Stat Man remains of concern to you Enumerate. Lets look at what the Fourth report says:Quote:
but it is clear that the secrecy of the Statutory Management process, in addition to the draconian powers, combine to allow faceless men in the shadows to assert fearful, unfetter and anti-democratic power.
"The state of Te Tua’s loan records is very poor."...."Of Aorangi’s $24 million investment, a “worst case” estimate indicates that only $6.88 million of this may be recoverable."
With regard to Hubbard Management Funds: "The quality of the reporting by Mr Hubbard in the statements issued to investors is of serious concern to us." Theres a $13m shortfall in investments, $6m in cash and $8m of over valued shares.
Aorangi Securities were only receiving 1/4 of repayments due - and this was a trend. AH has done a Huljich - contributed his own funds to make the investments look kosher.
AH transferred funs to his own charitable trust. The Stat Man says this is of "doubtful validity" and they are unwinding these transactions. There also seems to be tax implications which may suggest he was minimized tax exposure. avoidance or evasion who knows just yet.
On and on the report goes and its ugly reading.
how does that cheese ad go?Quote:
Where are the SFO charges against Allan Hubbard?
I'm not sure I see a logical connection. Clearly AH was not against shunting cash and assets from one place to another in an effort to prop up otherwise dodgy accounts.Quote:
Hubbard could have walked away from SCF - kept Dairy, Helicopters and Scales - and continued to be a wealthy man. He did not. This is the best argument against those who would impugn Hubbard's integrity.
There might be some merit to this statement - except if we look at his Trusts its clear he was quite capable of making a mess of it all on his own.Quote:
He was betrayed by a vast number of people who were actually in a position to help ... The incompetence of his advisers ... The malice of politicians who feared SCF failure (and bailout) in an election year ...
:Lets not gloss over the emerging fact that part of his ethic was to also mislead his investors and move funds in an interesting manner. Its also becoming clear that it wasn't "his money" he was doing "good with - it was other peoplesQuote:
Allan was destroyed by his work ethic and desire to "do good" with his money.
AH was a director and major shareholder. It is he that needs to front up and take responsibility for the mess that SCF now finds itself in. It was he that kept the Board small and close. That, though doesn't mean other Directors should not also share some of that blame.Quote:
He should not have lent his name to the doings of Lachie McLeod and Peter Bosworth. His board and his business partners could all have done more to assert governance - but what clumsy efforts were made were resisted by Allan.
Teh Govt didn't demolish SCF. It's demise began during Labours reign and we can point teh finger at Dalziel who fiddled while Rome burned.Quote:
David Baragwanath is quoted around some very fundamental legal rights based on the Magna Carta. I cannot help believe that the Judicary will be scathing on the application of Statutory Management - the government demolishes a business and then assumes control.
a GFC is also pretty unusual as is a government protecting depositors dumb decisions with tax payer cash. As a disgruntled tax payer any govt has my support in dong what it can to mitigate my exposure and minimize the net financial impact.Quote:
The receivership, itself, is singular - it is highly unusual for an alleged "insolvent" finance company to be restored to operation and run by the receiver as manager.
Three issues here: SCF; Stat Man and Serious Fraud. Its going to take time!Quote:
It is time to resolve the matter of Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard.
Lay charges - so we can bring the guilty to account - or make restitution by adopting a more sympathetic approach to the SCF receivership.
Mini, you make Statutory Management sound like some kind of "charm school" for errant accountants. The delinquents are instructed in proper deportment of their portfolios. Their books are balanced; their ledgers squared - under the strict tutelage of strict government appointed Statutory Managers.
There is an analysis of a persons rights in the Virginia Green book, under Statutory Management. There are no rights of appeal. Even the process of Statutory Management is highly secretive. You don't know the case against you nor is there (it seems from the Hubbard example) the need to even lay any charges.
In a trice, all your property rights are extinguished.
What role does the justice system play in all of this? Why no role at all. Where are the laws of evidence? Where is the basic right to face your accusers? Where is the obligation of government to restrain it's use of overwhelming power and to afford citizens their full rights in the law.
Mr Key and his government have replaced nearly a thousand years of English common law and the right to due process with powers of Statutory Management.
It will be very interesting to see what happens when Minister Power and Adam Feeley take the "evidence" of wrong doing to a court of law. The reality is that there is no intention to lay charges (I quote Prime Minster Key on this, read the book). This is the controlled demolition of Allan Hubbard and his business interests for political purposes.
Where does it say in the Statutory Manager's report that Allen Hubbard is responsible for wrongdoing x, y or z?
The method of gathering the "evidence" is illegal. The "evidence" of wrong doing is debatable. The assignment of guilt to Mr Hubbard is based on which "smoking gun".
Mini, you seem unconcerned that normal commercial channels of investigation have been bypassed (why not appoint an auditor?). The unsubstantiated rantings of the tabloid press (that passes for business journalism in NZ) do not constitute a forensic investigation. Even powers of investigation under the companies act have been brushed aside. Mini, you seem happy with this situation?
Statutory Management of Hubbard has a political motivation. The consequences of this arrogant and unjust use of political power will be felt from Parnell to Dipton ...
[QUOTE=Enumerate;326297]
There is an analysis of a persons rights in the Virginia Green book, under Statutory Management. There are no rights of appeal. Even the process of Statutory Management is highly secretive. You don't know the case against you nor is there (it seems from the Hubbard example) the need to even lay any charges.
If this is the quality of analysis in the Virginia Green book it's not worth the paper it's written on. Of course there is a right of appeal - a decision to place someone in statutory management is subject to judicial review. For whatever reason, Hubbard has chosen not to invoke his right, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
He will certainly have been informed of the reasons for the statutory management, it is a requirement of the common law even if not spelled out in the statute. In fact, the reasons were made public by Minister Power when the statutory management was announced.
Of course there is no need to lay charges first - statutory management is not a penalty, it is a last-resort means of securing assets that are at risk when there is no other effective way of doing so. And it does not extinguish anyone's property rights, rather it freezes them so that whatever mess has given rise to the SM can be sorted out.
Finally, neither the govt nor any of its Ministers has any say in whether or not criminal charges are laid.