Forum Archive Index - June 2000

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

Hmmm, if successful, costs go to lawyer.  Stephen Franks is the lawyer....  Cynical about lawyers I know (especially since I'm going to be one next year), but definite self-interest there (and of course there's his connection with ACT which immediately has him trying to show that no more regulations are required).  And Roger Kerr - is he still chair of the BR?  Self-interested.  Still no word from the shareholders of FLC - did you know you could take an action and recover costs?  Would you even consider it? 

 

Oliver

----- Original Message -----

From: Ben Dutton

To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:58 PM

Subject: Re: [sharechat] Fletchers and Insider Trading

Hi Oliver,

 

In Stephen Franks press release about the Kerry Hoggard matter, he said:

 

"We think the most he could be ordered to pay is approximately $600,000, but the final measure of damage may be significantly less, and the maximum penalty the Court can award, is three times the gain.

We will also be asking the court to establish some useful precedents, to reassure applicants in such cases in future that they will be fully reimbursed for all the costs and risks of taking these proceedings on behalf of shareholders generally. Anything received above the costs of the action will go to charity."

 

Hope this helps answer your question.

 

Best Regards,

 

Benjamin Dutton

----- Original Message -----

From: Oliver Shapleski

To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:02 AM

Subject: [sharechat] Fletchers and Insider Trading

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