Sunday, April 30, 2006

Keith Richards falls from a tree

I'm stunned by this news. I was expecting at his age that the news would have been "Keith Richards falls from his Zimmer Frame".

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

David Parker exonerated?!?

The Companies Office have decided not to charge David Parker on breaches of the Companies Act for filing a false declaration. Their reasons for doing so was that under case law, the shares held by Russell Hyslop which were invested in the Official Assignee when Hyslop was made bankrupt, the shares did not revert back to him when he was discharged from his bankrupcy but continue to remain assigned to the Assignee. The Assignee had intended to give the shares to Parker and his father but never got around to it.

As was already known, the Official Assignee made a waiver for the audit requirement in 1997. However the Official Assignee had written (and which Parker apparently forgot about) that he was waiving the requirement to continue to seek the confirmation on a yearly basis. Such a indefinite waiver is legally dubious and the legal opinion goes out of its way to describe the waiver as "purported" and "a little inapt". The grey area is that Parker had the duty to take the resolution every year but there is no requirement that the shareholder's waiver be actively given every year. Even if the Official Assignee's waiver was legally invalid, Parker's declarations were neither false nor misleading.

So when Parker thought that he was breaking the law (for which he resigned his cabinet portfolios), he really wasn't because the declarations that he thought were false or misleading when he signed them were actually true but legally defective. I can only hope that when and if Parker is restored to his portfolios that he learn from this by a) amending both the Companies and Insolvency Acts with a view to cleaning it up and b) keeping better records.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Clive Hulme: War Criminal?

The Sunday Star-Times recently had an article about Sergeant Hulme, a VC recipient, was a war criminal because he wore enemy uniform while participating in attacks. The law is less clear cut than they think as it pertains to Sergeant Hulme's activities. What I found curious when looking at the article was that Hulme was described as wearing a german paratrooper's smock or blouse. So what did this article of clothing look like? A simple google turned up a website with the picture on the left. Do you see any insignia on that smock? No?? Then it doesn't fall under the definition of a uniform.

Methinks the authors Harper and Richardson owe an apology. Peter Wills who had described the actions as "unsanctioned murder" is excused because as the deputy director for Peace Studies, no reasonable-minded person could have taken his words seriously.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Purgewatch: Michael Cullen

Helen Clark has created a stir by talking about how long Michael Cullen will stay on as Finance Minister. It's not so much as what she's saying but that she's even discussing the possibility at all. Cullen wouldn't discuss the matter and was said by TVNZ to be "annoyed".

Although Cullen's retirement has been mooted before, I'm bemused at why Clark is going after Cullen and not the unnamed minister whom she had "expected" will retire this year. After all, Jim Sutton is in no hurry to retire his position as Minister of Trade Negotiations despite Helen's statement that he will retire by Christmas.