Hi Oliver.
Good to have your summary of the situation. However in the interest of accuracy I feel a couple of comments on your wording are warranted. And as a reference I provide a link to the judgement against Alan Lai and Agria Singapore in New Zealand.
https://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/defau...t_20190404.pdf
From your article Oliver:
"Alan Lai (and Agria) reached a settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that resulted in a fine and him being banned as a director for a period of five years in both the US and New Zealand. That also saw Agria forced to reduce its stake in PGW to below 50% by the Overseas Investment Office."
While the broad overview of your facts are correct, the way you have worded your sentence gives the impression that it was the USEC that stopped Alan Lai standing as a director in New Zealand for five years. From your referenced link they said this:
"Without admitting or denying the findings, Lai agreed to pay a $400,000 penalty and be barred for a period of five years from acting as an officer or director of any public company."
But the USEC has no jurisdiction in New Zealand. So they cannot have banned Mr Lai from standing as a director of PGW.
If you look at the separate New Zealand judgement under paragraph 75:
"c) Mr Lai has agreed not to assume directorship of PGW or the role of Chairperson of PGW until at least December 2023."
So Mr Lai was not banned as a director for all New Zealand companies for five years. That ban only applied to PGW, which is not how your article reads.
Again, while the gist of your second sentence is correct, it was actually Land Information New Zealand that brought the case against Mr Lai in New Zealand, using the Overseas Investment Act. It was the legal judgement against Mr Lai that forced him via Agria Singapore to reduce his PGW holding, not the OIO. Technically the Overseas investment Office was not involved in that legal action.
(Edit: As noted by Leemsip in post 5513 the 'Overseas Investment Office' (OIO) is contained under the umbrella of LINZ (Land Information New Zealand). So although LINZ is on paper the legal entity taking the case, it is not incorrect to say the OIO was taking the case.)
I make these comments not to nit pick, but because in matters of legality details do matter. And given you may have an important role at the upcoming special meeting, I wouldn't want to see you discredited for spreading misinformation.
SNOOPY