Forum Archive Index - February 2001

[Chris Tse <christse@internet.co.nz>]

Ben

Fully agree with your comments.

For Mr Bevin to deny conflict of interest "because Montana was not a key 
position in Tower portfolios" is, quite frankly, laughable. Assuming the 
details of the sale are true, the decision to grant a waiver to LNN allowed 
his company to negotiate a sale of 900,000 MON shares at $4.65, which based 
on MON's closing price yesterday of $3.62, amounts to a difference of 
$927,000. No conflict of interest? Pull the other one!

I read somewhere that at least two other members of the panel declined to 
participate in the waiver decision due to their having potential conflict 
of interest issues. It would be interesting to know what their "interests" 
were and compare them to those of Mr Bevin.

This fiasco is going from bad to worse. Not only does the market 
surveillance panel have to deal with accusations of naivety and 
incompetence, but Mr Bevin's "supposed non conflict of interest" in 
granting the waiver throws an even more unsavoury element into the pot. 
What price Mr Masfen or Allied Domecq instigating legal action?

In terms of the panel's explanation that they granted the waiver to create 
a level playing field, that is an absolute joke. What MON shareholder would 
sell their holding into the Allied $4.40 offer when it was conditional upon 
Allied gaining 50.01% and knowing that LNN had only to acquire just over 
22% more with their $4.65 offer to reach their 50.1% target?

If the waiver had not been granted we would have had an interesting day's 
trading on Friday with small investors having the opportunity to sell out 
on the market to punters gambling that Allied would come through with a 
counterbid.

The NZSE market surveillance panel put the kaibosh on that, and 
collectively cost Kiwi Mum and Dad shareholders millions of dollars in the 
process.

Chris

At 07:36 13/02/01, you wrote:
>Numerous stories on the Montana takeover fiasco in this morning's papers.
>One interesting tidbit of information comes from a Dominion article:
>
>"In other developments last night, a member of the surveillance panel, Tower
>Asset Management managing director Paul Bevin, said Tower had sold, or
>undertaken to sell, about 900,000 Montana shares to Lion after the waiver.
>
>Mr Bevin also said he was aware at the time that Tower held Montana shares.
>He said he had no influence over Tower's share trading decisions, which were
>made by a portfolio manager.
>
>He was satisfied he did not have a conflict of interest, because Montana was
>not a key position in Tower portfolios."
>
>This is a very interesting development.  I do not understand how Mr Bevin
>could say that he did not have a conflict of interest.  If Tower has indeed
>sold its holding to Lion, then Tower will have financially benefited from
>the transaction.  Mr Bevin is managing director of the group.  How is this
>not conflicted?
>
>Brian Gaynor sums up the situation perfectly in a Herald article - check it
>out here:
>
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=172113&thesection=busines
>s&thesubsection=
>
>Best Regards
>
>Ben Dutton
>(Disc. do not hold MON)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
>http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join now.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
>http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.