Forum Archive Index - June 2000

["Oliver Shapleski" <oliver.shapleski@vuw.ac.nz>]

Was delighted to see an article in the Post last night that said Stephen Franks and Roger Kerr are pursuing punitive penalties for Kerry Hoggard.  About time someone did!  I was disgusted last week when Fletchers said they did not consider taking further action as necessary.  How important is integrity to them?  How did you Fletcher shareholders feel about the company not going any further?

 

The company has a DUTY to shareholders under the SecAmendment Act to take actions on behalf of shareholders.  If I was a shareholder of Fletchers I would already have served a notice on the company myself requiring that Fletchers take further action.  Lost his chair and paid back the profits?  What sort of deterrent is that?  The whole point of 300% penalties is to act as a deterrent - who are the company to say that the loss of job was a sufficient one? 

 

I can't wait to hear how the High Court deals with this one - if there is ANY integrity in the process at all there is no way Kerry Hoggard will get out of there paying less than another $100k.  My question then is: who gets the $100k?  My understanding was that only the company can take the action, and that the moeny goes to the company to act as compensation for damage to reputation.  If Stephen Franks is leading the action to restore FLC's reputation (and I assume with his expertise he knows that he can), where does the money go?

 

Oliver