|
Printable version |
From: | "Oliver Shapleski" <oliver.shapleski@vuw.ac.nz> |
Date: | Fri, 19 May 2000 18:54:48 +1200 |
Interesting article on FRO and insider trading in
the NBR this week. What is MOST strange is that the article focuses on the
confusion about which SX is to regulate (surely BOTH should?!?!), and almost
totally neglects to comment on the directors' liability for saying "there are no
matters that we know of" to a "please explain" at the end of December.
Clearly there were matters that were, or should have been, known, and FRO should
have been suspended from trading back then or a conditional announcement
made. If I was an FRO shareholder who had sold (or even a BCH
shareholder who had recently bought prior to FRO's change of direction) I would
be mightily peeved by now and would be saying something a little harsher than
"please explain". Fortunately I am neither, and I can save my cusses
for Messrs Anderton and Brash.
Oliver
|
|