Archive | Regulation

Commission opens investigation into Fulton Hogan’s Stevenson acquisition

The Commerce Commission has opened an investigation into Fulton Hogan Ltd’s proposed acquisition of Stevenson Group Ltd’s construction materials business.

The commission said yesterday it would consider whether the acquisition would be likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition in any relevant market in breach of section 47 of the Commerce Act. The acquisition is due to be completed by 31 July, but the parties haven’t applied for clearance for it.

Fulton Hogan is one of New Zealand’s largest roading & infrastructure construction companies. The commission said it would focus initially on the potential competitive effects of the proposed acquisition on quarry markets in Auckland & North Waikato.

It would also consider whether any competitive effects arise from Fulton Hogan’s proposed acquisition of Stevenson’s concrete plants, transport, laboratory services and associated plant & equipment.

The commission seeks input to its investigation by Friday 29 June.

The sale would leave Stevenson’s with its property development & mining operations. Its biggest property interest is the 360ha Drury South industrial park it’s begun developing.

Related stories:
7 April 2017: Kiwi Property plans new town centre next to Stevenson’s Drury development
30 August 2013: Drury South industrial area plan change & MUL extension approved

Attribution: Commission release.

Continue Reading

“Cynical & deliberate” repossession practices earn Allan Hawkins’ companies fines & refund orders, commission seeks banning orders

2 finance companies headed by former Equiticorp boss Allan Hawkins – Budget Loans Ltd & Evolution Finance Ltd – were fined $720,000 in the Auckland District Court yesterday on 125 charges under the Fair Trading Act.Judge David Sharp also ordered the companies to pay $53,000 emotional harm reparations to 9 victims and $38,000 in refunds & credits to borrowers for repossession tactics he described as “cynical & deliberate”.

The Commerce Commission is seeking banning orders against Mr Hawkins, now 76, and his elder son, Wayne Hawkins, who was also a director at the relevant times, following this sentencing & the earlier conviction of Budget Loans on 34 charges under the Fair Trading Act in 2010.

6 years of misrepresenting repossession rights

The Commerce Commission’s general counsel for competition & consumer, Mary-Anne Borrowdale, set out the companies’ practices. She said that, over 6 years from 2009 until 2014, Budget Loans misrepresented its right to repossess goods and recover interest & costs from borrowers. It also misrepresented amounts borrowers were required to pay under attachment orders and made misrepresentations about the benefits of refinancing existing loans.

Budget bought the distressed loan books of National Finance 2000 Ltd in 2006 and Western Bay Finance Ltd in 2008, and has twice been convicted for its handling of them. After the company was fined in 2010, it undertook to return $500,000 in overcharged interest & fees to borrowers.

In 2016, Budget Loans was convicted on 106 charges but 19 charges were dismissed. The Commerce Commission successfully appealed the dismissal decision, and Budget Loans’ application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in November 2017.

Mr Hawkins founded 1980s high-flier, the Equiticorp group. After its demise in the 1987 sharemarket collapse, he & other Equiticorp executives & an advisor were tried in relation to financing arrangements behind the group’s $166 million purchase of NZ Steel Ltd from the Government in 1987. Mr Hawkins was sentenced to 6 years’ jail in 1993.

After yesterday’s court hearing, Ms Borrowdale said: “The court acknowledged today that Budget Loans attempted to create cashflow by getting Western Bay & National Finance borrowers to pay as much as possible for as long as possible. It continually added costs & interest to loans and then repossessed essential goods from borrowers without notice when they couldn’t pay, regardless of whether it was legally entitled to do so.  “The costs of the repossession were, for the most part, higher than the value of the goods and sometimes Budget Loans simply threw repossessed goods away rather than selling them. It also obtained judgments against some borrowers, but continued to add interest & costs and demanded more from borrowers than the courts had awarded, and to misrepresent its right to repossess.

“Where loans were not secured, Budget Loans sought to convince some borrowers to sign new, secured loans by telling them that they would get a discount on their loan balance. However, the amount of the discounted loan was higher than the amount the borrower was actually required to pay.

“Budget Loans’ conduct & misrepresentations kept vulnerable borrowers in a cycle of debt & repossession. It knowingly engaged in illegal repossessions of essential items from people that it knew were already living in hardship. The financial & emotional distress caused by this conduct to borrowers & their families should not be underestimated.”

83 of the charges were for misrepresentations around repossession, including where there was no valid right to repossess a secured item of property, such as a vehicle or household goods, or where there was no outstanding loan balance to be paid.

“In some cases Budget Loans stripped houses almost bare. In other cases, it repossessed items that it should have known were of low value, and dumped them. Its own loan notes include such comments as ‘someone’s great idea to undertake an illegal repo’ and ‘debtor not to know we can’t repo’.”

29 charges were for adding interest & costs to a loan balance after repossession, when that is not allowed under the Credit Repossession Act.

Ms Borrowdale said: “One borrower declared herself bankrupt when told her loan had ballooned from about $9000 to $57,000. In fact she had less than $2500 to pay at that time. 10 charges were for misrepresentations about adding interest to loans, beyond amounts in attachment orders issued by the courts. One borrower’s loan balance was $8600 following an attachment order, but it was ‘recalculated’ to nearly $56,000.”

The final 3 charges were for misrepresentations about the benefits of refinancing with Budget Loans.

Allan Hawkins is now sole director of Budget Finance & its shareholder, Cynotech Securities Ltd. He & his wife, Laurel, own 99.98% of Cynotech.

He is also sole director of Evolution Finance. Its owner, the previously NZX-listed Cynotech Holdings Ltd, went into liquidation in 2013 after close funding supporters decided they’d no longer pay its overhead & infrastructure costs.

Earlier stories:
19 April 2017: Judge told to reconsider 19 dismissed charges against Hawkins loan companies
118 July 2016: Hawkins’ finance companies guilty on loan contract enforcement
 7 December 2014: Commission files criminal charges against 2 Allan Hawkins finance companies
9 November 2013: Commission tells Allan Hawkins’ finance companies to stop repossessions
31 July 2013: Hawkins goes to McDonald Vague for Cynotech liquidation
11 July 2013: Cynotech share trading halted after backers end support
15 June 2011: Cynotech loss increases as it clears decks
12 August 2010: NZX refuses Cynotech request for waiver
11 August 2010: Cynotech suspended
4 August 2010: Cynotech talks departure, NZX talks suspension
28 July 2010: “Welcome letter” from Hawkins’ Budget Loans to National Finance borrowers came with an illegal $15 fee
16 June 2010: Cynotech slips to loss
14 April 2010: Remaining Cynotech shares to move to NZAX
20 January 2010: Hawkins renews Cynotech privatisation bid
23 December 2009: Hawkins withdraws Cynotech bid after Takeovers Panel asks questions
21 April 2008: Cynotech doubles receivables book to $60 million-plus in 4 months
9 October 2006: Allan Hawkins buys National Finance (Payless Cars) loan book

Attribution: Commission release.

Continue Reading

First companies sentenced arising from steel mesh investigation

2 related companies, Timber King Ltd & NZ Steel Distributor Ltd, have been fined $400,950 for making false & misleading representations relating to their steel mesh products, which are used to strengthen buildings. NZ Steel Distributor imports steel from China and Timber King was the retailer.

They’re the first companies sentenced after Commerce Commission investigations into steel mesh sales, which began after the commission received a complaint from a Timber King customer in August 2015.

Auckland District Court judge Robert Ronayne heard the case in December and handed down his decision on Tuesday, fining Timber King on 5 charges and NZ Steel Distributor on 2 charges under the Fair Trading Act. The 2 companies pleaded guilty to making false, misleading & unsubstantiated representations relating to their TS10 steel mesh between June 2015 & February 2016.

From a starting point of $660,000, Judge Ronayne reduced the penalties by 10% for co-operation and 25% for early guilty pleas, and another 10% for claimed inability to pay a fine that big, although the judge was sceptical about the audit & accounting evidence provided to him.

Fake certificate

Judge Ronayne said the customer above bought 3 sheets of TS10 steel mesh from Timber King, noted the mesh had no tags and asked for a copy of the test certificate demonstrating compliance with the standard. After he received a photograph of a batch tag, the customer sought further verification of compliance. In reply, Timber King sent the customer a certificate on the letterhead of external building product testing laboratory SGS NZ Ltd.

Judge Ronayne: “As a result of further enquiries, it was revealed that the certificate was fake and had not been produced by SGS. SGS had not carried out testing of the mesh to determine compliance with the standard. Instead, the certificate had been created by an employee of Timber King using a genuine SGS test certificate that had been obtained in relation to testing of a different product and altering it so that it appeared to show that TS10 had been tested & found to comply.”

Jackie Liu is a director of both companies and, Judge Ronayne said, was for all intents & purposes the controlling mind of both companies. He owns 75% of the shares in Steel Distributor and effectively controls a 55% holding in Timber King through holding companies, Three Brothers Group Ltd & NZ Liu Family Trustees Ltd. He’s sole director of both.

Ringo Liu is also a director of both Timber King & Steel Distributor. He owns 25% of the shares in Steel Distributor and effectively controls a 45% holding in Timber King through Three Brothers.

This in a quake-prone country?

Judge Ronayne said: “It is quite obvious in New Zealand, given our history of earthquakes & the consequences of them, that there is a vital need for consumers to rely on representations as to standard compliance and, in particular, earthquake standard compliance.”

He concluded that the companies were “grossly negligent” in the steps they took to ensure that the product complied with the standard: “The creation of the fake certificate can only have been deliberately carried out in order to provide an additional false assurance of compliance with the standard.

“The use of non-compliant steel mesh, especially in the context of earthquake compliant mesh, has actual & potentially enormous consequences for consumers, for competitors and for the reputation of the building industry. Very strong specific & general deterrence is required in these circumstances.”

Mesh went into 32 homes

Timber King sold 2600 sheets of TS10 over a 9-month period, of which 614 are known to have failed both aspects of the standard and the others to have failed its testing requirements. Judge Ronayne said it appeared the 614 sheets went into the ground slabs for 31 homes and a suspended concrete floor of another home: “5 homes were considered to be high risk, 24 medium risk & 3 low risk. The 5 high risk homes were then referred to an engineer who considered one of them to be ‘of concern’. Obviously, this exercise has not been without cost.”

The judge added: “The misleading conduct appears to have been carried out with a focus to remain competitive in the market. It can therefore be assumed that this gave an unfair competitive advantage over compliant competitors.”

Background

The Commerce Commission has filed charges against a number of companies relating to false & misleading representations about 500E steel mesh. In 500E, the ‘E’ stands for earthquake, and the NZ Standard specifies strength & ductility (elasticity) requirements for steel reinforcing materials. The standard also specifies the procedures (ie, sampling & testing) that must be followed to comply including:

  • manufacturing methods that must be used by steel manufacturers
  • chemical, mechanical & dimensional requirements of mesh sampling & testing of each batch of mesh, and
  • identification & labelling of different grades of mesh.

To be sold in New Zealand as 500E grade steel mesh, the mesh must be produced in accordance with the requirements of the standard. If mesh is produced in any other way, it cannot be described as 500E mesh. The Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment is the building regulator, and sets & enforces the standards & Building Code. The commission can investigate misleading or deceptive claims about compliance with the standard.

Other inquiries

The commission has carried out a series of investigations into steel mesh following the complaint in August 2015. Following its investigations:

  • Fletcher Steel Ltd was issued with a warning
  • United Steel Ltd & Pacific Steel (NZ) Ltd were issued with compliance advice
  • Brilliance Steel Ltd pleaded guilty to 20 charges and will be sentenced on 25 May
  • Steel & Tube Holdings Ltd pleaded guilty to 24 charges and is awaiting sentencing
  • The commission filed 59 charges against Euro Corp Ltd in December 2017.

Links:
Timber King & NZ Steel Distributor judgment
Fletcher Steel warning
United Steel & Pacific Steel compliance advice

Earlier stories:
29 November 2017: Steel & Tube owns up to mesh label & testing guilty pleas
8 June 2017: Updated: Commission files 29 charges against Steel & Tube over mesh
8 April 2016: Steel & Tube undertakes dual mesh testing
5 March 2016: Suppliers recheck as commission questions steel mesh, ministry not worried

25 April 2016: Commission lifts ‘stop’ on Euro Corp steel mesh

Attribution: Judgment, commission release.

Continue Reading

FMA lays charges alleging financial service register breaches

The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) has filed criminal charges in the North Shore District Court against an unnamed company & its NZ-based director for breaching the Financial Service Providers (Registration & Dispute Resolution) Act (FSP Act).

The FMA said it hadn’t named either the company or the New Zealand-based director in this release because the court hadn’t yet heard the issue of name suppression.

The company is charged with 2 counts of breaching section 12 of the act and the NZ-based director is charged with 2 counts of breaching sections 12 & 40.

Section 12 provides that no person, including a corporation, can hold out that it is in the business of providing a financial service unless it is registered on the Financial Service Providers Register & a member of an approved dispute resolution scheme. Section 40 covers a director’s liability if he knowingly authorises or knowingly fails to prevent a corporation committing an offence under the act.

Each charge for breaching section 12 carries a maximum fine of $300,000 for a company and a maximum penalty of either $100,000 fine &/or one-year jail term for an individual. The authority said these charges were the first of their kind under section 12.

The FMA alleges the company continued to hold out on 2 websites that it was registered on the Financial Service Providers Register after it had been deregistered and despite subsequent warnings from the Companies Office regarding misleading statements on its website as to registration.

FMA head of enforcement Karen Chang said: “The FMA will hold directors of companies to account where the company is in breach of the FSP Act and we’re concerned the register is being abused. Our intention to target directors who encourage or facilitate abuse of the register was set out in our report in September 2017, so a clear warning has been given.

“The register has been abused by businesses & individuals who use New Zealand’s reputation as a well regulated country to target overseas investors. The FMA invests significant time & resources in tackling this problem to protect the legitimacy of New Zealand’s financial services firms.”

Attribution: FMA release.

Continue Reading

Steel & Tube owns up to mesh label & testing guilty pleas

After revelations in news outlets this morning that Steel & Tube Holdings Ltd had pleaded guilty – in August – to 24 charges of making false & misleading representations about its seismic mesh products, the company issued a statement to the NZX confirming the guilty pleas.

The company set out numerous dates concerning testing, logos & methodologies, but didn’t mention that it had gone from co-operating with the Commerce Commission to guilty pleas over 3 months ago. It will be sentenced in March.

Steel & Tube interim chief executive Mark Malpass said in today’s statement to the NZX: “On 7 June 2017, Steel & Tube confirmed that the Commerce Commission had filed charges against the company under the Fair Trading Act in relation to 500E grade seismic mesh. The charges in regards to compliance with the testing standard for seismic mesh relate to the application of testing methodologies only, not the performance characteristics of the seismic mesh.

“12 charges relate to the inadvertent use of a testing laboratories logo at the bottom of the test certificates of SE62 mesh. Steel & Tube acknowledged the mistake in March 2016 and immediately removed the logo.

“The remaining 12 charges relate to the application of testing methodologies in the applicable standard, not the performance characteristics of the mesh.

“Steel & Tube has been co-operating with the commission to reach an appropriate resolution of the charges and has entered guilty pleas to the charges.

“Steel & Tube takes quality & compliance very seriously and, since April 2016, the company has had external accredited laboratories testing seismic mesh. The company has also taken significant steps to enhance its quality & product assurance systems.

“These charges relate to historical matters that are before the courts and the company cannot comment further.”

Others too

As if to make itself look not so bad, Steel & Tube added: “The commission has previously confirmed it has filed charges against 2 other companies in relation to false & misleading representations about seismic mesh. The commission has also said previously that it expected to lay charges against one other company, and that investigations continued into another.”

Background

Steel & Tube also added some background – which, through this 2-year episode, has made the company look less bad, even good, for its proactive approach.

Mr Malpass said: “There were significant interpretational issues with the standard for testing seismic mesh. The ambiguities in the standard led to Steel & Tube calling for a Government/industry review of the testing standard and, in November last year, the clarification that Steel & Tube had sought was issued by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Enterprise.

“Clarification of the standard gives all seismic mesh manufacturers & sellers certainty regarding how seismic mesh is to be tested to ensure it complies with the standard. It also gives building owners reassurance that all seismic mesh will now be tested in the same way.”

Earlier stories:
8 June 2017: Updated: Commission files 29 charges against Steel & Tube over mesh
8 April 2016: Steel & Tube undertakes dual mesh testing
5 March 2016: Suppliers recheck as commission questions steel mesh, ministry not worried

Attribution: Company release.

Continue Reading

Customers billed though their fire extinguishers weren’t serviced

The Commerce Commission has issued a ‘stop now’ letter to Aero Fire (NZ) Sales & Service Ltd (Mira Singh) for charging customers to service, test, refill & recharge fire extinguishers, then not providing the service.

Aero Fire operates mainly in Auckland & Hamilton. Commissioner Anna Rawlings said the company had confirmed it would comply with the commission’s requests.

Ms Rawlings said the commission’s investigation showed Aero Fire charged customers for refilling, pressure testing or recharging over 300 fire extinguishers, but the company had admitted it performed none of those services: “From information obtained, it appears that only 2 of those extinguishers were pressure tested & recharged by a third party for Aero Fire. In our view the conduct may breach the Fair Trading Act.

“Aero Fire has been asked to immediately cease making false or misleading representations relating to the servicing of fire extinguishers, including that it operates in accordance with the relevant NZ Standard, when it does not.”

The commission also asked Aero Fire to cease misleading conduct, including the punching of maintenance tags to indicate pressure testing had been done, when it had not.

Ms Rawlings said the commission was continuing its investigations.

Attribution: Commission release.

Continue Reading

Commission sets out preliminary issues on Daiken takeover of Dongwha MDF business

The Commerce Commission published a statement of preliminary issues yesterday relating to Daiken NZ Ltd’s proposed acquisition of Dongwha NZ Ltd.

It’s a standard but comprehensive list of competition checks & balances (see the link below).

Daiken lodged its application on 3 October. The commission has invited submissions by Thursday 2 November and is scheduled to make a decision on the application by 30 November. However, the decision date could be extended.

Daiken is the New Zealand subsidiary of Daiken Corp, a Japanese company specialising in the manufacture & supply of wood-based construction materials. In New Zealand, Daiken manufactures & supplies medium density fibreboard (MDF) from a plant it operates in North Canterbury.

Laminex gets supply agreement

Under a product supply agreement with Daiken, Laminex would continue to be supplied with raw MDF from the Southland plant.

Daiken said the agreement would enable Laminex to continue to compete with it and with New Zealand’s third raw MDF manufacturer, Nelson Pine Industries Ltd, in the supply of raw MDF to customers in New Zealand.

Daiken submitted that Dongwha NZ was a “fringe competitor” in the supply of raw MDF within New Zealand because it had long been primarily export focused and, setting aside its sales to Laminex, accounted for a very small proportion of sales in New Zealand.

Daiken also submitted that the proposed merger would not give rise to a material lessening of competition in the manufacture & supply of raw MDF in New Zealand because:

  • Nelson Pine is the largest competitor in the New Zealand market at present, and would continue to exert significant competitive constraint on the merged entity, including by being able to divert significant volumes destined for export to New Zealand customers if market opportunities were to arise;
  • raw MDF is sold in a global commodity market, meaning that prices to New Zealand customers are pinned to conditions in that global market, rather than by standalone competitive dynamics in the New Zealand market;
  • overseas manufacturers of raw MDF in Australia, Asia & South America could import & supply raw MDF in New Zealand if New Zealand manufacturers were to price raw MDF above global market levels;
  • substitutability of MDF for particle board placed additional competitive constraint on the supply raw MDF in New Zealand;
  • new entrants could be incentivised to enter;
  • customers are highly price conscious, push back in negotiations on price increases, and are willing to switch suppliers if they can obtain a cheaper price; and
  • the merger would not materially change the existing degree of competition in New Zealand because the product supply agreement Daiken & Laminex would enter into ancillary to the merger would ensure that Laminex has sufficient volumes to continue to compete, as market opportunities arise, with the merged entity & Nelson Pine in the sale of raw MDF in New Zealand.

The parties

Dongwha is 80% owned by Dongwha International Co Ltd (incorporated in Hong Kong, controlled by Dongwha Group of South Korea) and 20% owned by Fletcher Building Ltd subsidiary Laminex Group (NZ) Ltd. In New Zealand, Dongwha manufactures & supplies MDF from a plant it operates in Southland.

Its minority shareholder, Laminex, buys MDF from Dongwha for its own wood products business in New Zealand. Laminex also on-sells some of the MDF it purchases from Dongwha to other parties.

Dongwha bought the New Zealand business from US timber company Rayonier Wood Products LLC in 2005, and Laminex bought 20% from Dongwha in November 2007.

Link:
Commerce Commission, clearances register, Daiken-Dongwha

Attribution: Commission release & website.

Continue Reading

Lawyer gets home detention for Celestion project finance deception

Lawyer Timothy Upton Slack (55) was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention today for his role in getting finance for the Celestion apartments hotel project in 2008.

The development by Emily Projects Ltd (Leonard Ross) was close to not proceeding in the early days after the global financial crisis had started to impact, for lack of sales.

ANZ Bank NZ Ltd agreed to advance $41 million under an agreement signed in December 2008, provided Emily Projects had qualified presales on 80 of the proposed 127 apartments, all buyers unrelated to the developer & with cash deposits.

In the Auckland High Court today, Justice Kit Toogood said Mr Slack gave the bank several undertakings & personal assurances “that you knew were blatant lies”.

The judge said: “Although you said there was minimum risk to the bank, it was for the bank to decide that…. Deliberate & planned deception increases your culpability.” He said the bank was likely to reconsider its lending procedures.

Mr Slack made false representations that the preconditions had been satisfied. In fact, Justice Toogood said, “Emily Projects had in fact achieved few if any of those presales. The letters of acknowledgment were entirely false. In fact no deposits had been paid and no cash deposits were held.”

The judge said Mr Slack “had no idea the deposits & letters of acknowledgment were false”, but he went on to provide several false undertakings that his law firm held deposit funds in its account. The firm charged Emily Projects $488,000 in fees for its work.

The bank also didn’t lose out. The project, between Emily Place & the foot of Anzac Avenue in the Auckland cbd, was completed, the bank collected interest on its loan and the development finance was paid back.

Mr Slack pleaded guilty on 1 September to one representative Crimes Act charge of obtaining by deception. Justice Toogood said the maximum jail term was 7 years, but the agreed starting point in setting penalty was 4 years’ jail.

He told Mr Slack: “You were disciplined by the Law Society in 2005 for another misdemeanour. That disqualifies you from any discount for good character.”

However, the judge discounted the prospective jail term by 16% for remorse & future consequences and took the discount to 25% for an early guilty plea, plus 20% for the “moderate” degree of support he gave the Serious Fraud Office, which prosecuted.

Justice Toogood told Mr Slack: “Your complicity was essential to the deception [but] you did not devise the fraud scheme yourself.”

The judge also said Mr Slack’s humiliation & loss of income – and there is doubt that he will retain his certificate to practise as a lawyer – added to the discount, reducing the potential jail term to 22 months: “That means you are eligible for home detention.”

Justice Toogood did not explain how a longer jail term translated into a shorter period of home detention, but commented: “I regard your reactions to your disgrace that you have real insight into your offending & its causes and pose no risk of reoffending…. Imprisoning you would serve no useful purpose.”

Mr Slack was adjudicated bankrupt in 2013 and automatically discharged in April 2016.

The other 3 defendants in this case – property developer Leonard John Ross and 2 men who worked for him, company director Michael James Wehipeihana and self-employed consultant Vaughn Stephen Foster – will face trial on 5 June 2018.

Justice Toogood told Mr Slack: “I have made no findings at all about the guilt or innocence of your codefendants.”

Earlier stories:
3 September 2017: Celestion finance deal lawyer pleads guilty
12 April 2017: Remand on Celestion development fraud allegations
17 February 2017: SFO alleges fraud in Celestion development loan deal
8 May 2009: Ross’ Emily Projects starts work on ex-Blue Chip site

Attribution: Court sentencing.

Continue Reading

Celestion finance deal lawyer pleads guilty

The lawyer accused of serious fraud relating to finance for development of the Waldorf Celestion apartments hotel in 2009 pleaded guilty in the Auckland High Court on Friday to one Crimes Act charge of obtaining by deception.

Timothy Upton Slack (55) was one of 4 men charged by the Serious Fraud Office with making false statements in order to obtain a credit facility from the ANZ Bank NZ Ltd to allow Emily Projects Ltd to develop the Celestion between Anzac Avenue & Emily Place in Auckland.

The Serious Fraud Office has alleged that a loan facility of about $40 million was obtained.

Mr Slack’s name suppression was lifted, but non-publication orders relating to third parties remain in place. He faces up to 3 years’ jail. Mr Slack was adjudicated bankrupt in 2013 and automatically discharged in April 2016.

The other 3 defendants – property developer Leonard John Ross, company director Michael James Wehipeihana and self-employed consultant Vaughn Stephen Foster – will face trial on 5 June 2018.

Earlier stories:
12 April 2017: Remand on Celestion development fraud allegations
17 February 2017: SFO alleges fraud in Celestion development loan deal
9 October 2009: Apartments at centre of Blue Chip case go on market
8 May 2009: Ross’ Emily Projects starts work on ex-Blue Chip site

Attribution: SFO release, insolvency register.

Continue Reading

FMA updates non-GAAP guidance

The Financial Markets Authority released updated guidance yesterday on disclosing non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) financial information.

In the listed property sector, the main issues – for decades – have been the separation of revaluations from operating earnings and whether they have been highlighted consistently.

A third issue is how visible earnings/security are in listed entities’ results – important in assessing performance where capital has been raised.

The guidance note replaces one issued in 2012 and follows a review covering the last 5 years.

Garth Standish.

The authority’s capital markets director, Garth Stanish, said in yesterday’s release: “Capital markets only work properly if investors receive accurate and timely information. That information must also be understandable and engaging to investors. It should form an accurate, clear and compelling story about how a company is performing.

“Company financial statements are a vital part of the information investors receive. However, in the financial statements of many companies you’ll find phrases like ‘underlying earnings, ‘normalised profit’ or ‘cash earnings’. Information disclosed this way can sometimes confuse more than clarify. The information can be misleading if it is presented inconsistently, is not adequately defined, or used to hide bad news.”

Links: Consultation process
Guidance note: Disclosing non-GAAP financial information

Attribution: Authority release.

Continue Reading
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux