sans touche? Touche!
Printable View
sans touche? Touche!
Pathetic, Enumerate.
Are you sure you do not need the brain scan recommended?
But best laugh I have had in a while of how deep Hubbard's devotees' heads are now in a dark place! So thanks, me ole matey!
Nothing beats this thread for entertainment value and the ultimate study of brain-scanned human psychology!
Hubbard is on record in the Herald (Monday 24th) saying the brain scan claims are nonsensical.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10701602
That is the end of the matter.
However, this does not stop the NBR from running an unsubstantiated article on the 28th.
This should be a matter of deep embarrassment for the NBR. They well and truly should be considered "tabloid press" because of the outrageous "reporting".
We now have Balance filling up this thread with this drivel. I cannot believe I have to multi-post to deal with this nonsense.
On the record from Hubbard? End of the matter?
Remember this :
June 2010 - interview with RadioNZ
"Businessman Allan Hubbard is adamant he did not borrow from Aorangi Securities to invest other entities.
He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".
June 2010 - investigative journalism by SST :
"Aorangi operated without a prospectus and would borrow money from private investors and lend it out again to various business projects. Some of those projects related to Hubbard's own investment activities. One of those was Luggate Investments Ltd, a company structured as a joint venture between Aorangi and Forresters, making Hubbard its ultimate owner. The company appears to be a speculative property developer, which undertook a small lifestyle subdivision at Luggate, a rural settlement about 13km inland from Lake Wanaka in Central Otago."
So much for Hubbard's "on the record." More like "I need another brain scan."
You would think that the terms of reference for the following review would be a matter for public record:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10727012
Without this information, the outcome of this process is valueless.
I think a Royal Commission of Inquiry is the only mode of investigation that has the wide ranging scope and investigative power to deal with this situation.
The key things that mark the Statutory Management process as fundamentally corrupt are:
1) The process of determination lacks transparency: the process is secret and has no formal structure
2) Responsibility for the determination is vague: who, exactly, is responsible for Allan Hubbard's statutory management? At the moment it is everyone at cabinet level - and yet it is no-one.
3) There are no remedies for escape: how do you get out of statutory management by process of law? At the moment you have to appease those who acted against you in the first place with no recourse to the independent judiciary - how corrupt is this! - it is almost "third world", totalitarian state!?!
4) What are the parameters of application?: How long can you be in statutory management, what is the obligation of proof of a case against you, what is the timetable of events imposed on those prosecuting the statutory management?
5) What happens if it proves to be an abuse of power?
The Allan Hubbard case demonstrates a fundamental injustice. In the American system - the Supreme Court would probably be considering the validity of the bureaucratic procedure in the context of the constitution. In the NZ system, we have our own Bill of Rights - yeah, right.
The National government have demonstrated a complete contempt for any concept of "due process" in this case. I, for one, will have this thought front of mind (in the privacy of the polling booth), next election.
Also, the "Companies Office" is a division of the Business Services Branch of the MED. Power is Minster of Commerce - how can he instruct MED to do an investigation? Doesn't make sense - they should publish the "Terms of Reference" - but they won't - it is a "white wash" job.
So it seems as if over $100m of Face Finance assets have been sold:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10727494
If GE Capital are allowed to "cherry pick" from the portfolio - I would hope that they did not buy them at a discount.
Both the NZ Herald and the NBR trumpet the headline:
South Canterbury receivers sell Face Finance
However, the story appears to be different, depending who you read:
A "chunk of" the loan book vs the sale of the the subsidiary:Quote:
Originally Posted by NZHerald
Who is right?Quote:
Originally Posted by NBR
NBR goes on the tabloid path:
How much did South Canterbury lose on Face?
Needless to say, David Hillary is likely to be an NBR reader ...
Lots of cow poo being thrown at one another by the shareholders of Dairy Holdings, resulting in court action to block the sale of Dairy Holdings by the receiver.
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...m-effectively-
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Also some racehorses up for sales as well ... seized .... prob were Sam's
There is an article about Dairy Holdings shareholder discord on the National Business Review website entitled "Pye hits back as Dairy saga turns messy."
Unfortunately it is behind the pay-wall, but don't worry I went down to the bookshop to browse the article in the hard copy version, so you don't have to.
According to Alan Pye;
The shareholder agreement that Colin Armer claims to gives him preemptive rights to purchase shares does not exist.
He is selling out of Dairy Holdings because he wants to, not because he has to.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
50 charges of fraud laid by the SFO against AH.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/raw-dat...arges-ck-95631