Let’s hope the RAAF lets Kiwis on its C141s out of the next disaster area.
They understand our limitations.

However if it is an illegal act for the shareholders of a company to establish lines of communication with the board to be used outside of AGMs I stand corrected and the government has obviously done something illegal. Plus I am slightly more comfortable investing in companies whose majority shareholder I think is crap.

Publicly-listed companies are under an obligation of continuous disclosure to the NZX. All shareholders – and potential shareholders – are meant to receive all material information at the same time, and immediately it becomes material.

And board do not – must not – respond to shareholder “directives” except if these are made at an AGM or SGM of the company. Otherwise, whose “directive” is to be taken more seriously, and which are “directives” and which are suggestions or comments?

Cullen and the Air NZ Board have almost certainly broken the law here.

If you look carefully at Air NZ’s share price over the last couple of weeks you will see you little gang of four’s escapade into cross tasman shit slinging has cost shareholders in the airline a cool $150 million BEFORE the news about Virgin Air broke and cut a further $200 mil.

Maybe the confusion comes from the mingling of two roles here – Govt as majority company shareholder and Govt as representative of the interests of the NZ population.

Regardless of its shareholding role, the Govt was within its rights to say publicly that it didn’t like Air NZ doing something that might negatively impact NZ’s reputation or the safety of its people. And I don’t think it should have come as any surprise to Air NZ that that was the Govt’s position (not sure why the civil servants didn’t understand that).

Fixed it.

It is the role of the directors to carry out the wishes of the shareholders proportional to the amount of shares they own. All info that is provided should be provided equally to all shareholders so that they can decide what they want to be done, but it is within the rights of shareholders to request any info or action that they want and the board of directors to yay or nay providing that info on the basis of shareholder interest. When a majority shareholder asks for something to be provided they get it, because what they want is for all intents and purposes the shareholder interest. As long as the info of what is done is not hidden from minor shareholders there is no problem and the minor shareholders can object to the director with the full weight of their minor shareholdings.

If info is hidden it becomes a problem of privilege, but if not this is just a company responding to the directives of its shareholders – nothing wrong with that.

“MMP is not a charter for minority parities and I am hopeful a future parliament will address that issue. They have far too much influence at present which is not surprising because the public do not like them much.”

Um people don’t like the major parties much either, but they’re willing to vote for them, because a) its the traditional thing to do and b) they know that both are willing to pander to the dominant special interest groups i.e. bribe them, in order to get in power.

“And thats why NZ is regarded as a joke as regards good corporate governance around the world”

As opposed to … say … the USA?

I agree good governance is ideal but in practice it tends to happen only after something goes terribly wrong. Then for a while it improves – and gradually the tide goes out again. A bit like regulation of finance companies.

As for the shareholders the LABOUR government saved their shares from being entirely worthless, as would have happened under national.

Ask the shareholders of Sabena , or Swissair how much their shares are worth went they went bust.

[DPF: And we are onto Selma's 20th lie for the month. Name the regulation which required govt approval. And also you obviously do not understand shares very well but many shareholders have purchased their shares since the bailout. They are owed a duty under law for the company to look after their interests, not Dr Cullen's]

And thats why NZ is regarded as a joke as regards good corporate governance around the world And how do I know Cause I work in the area of corporate governance We are viewed as a light weight.

In other jursitictions directors and others go to jail for years for offences that under our pathetic corporate regime they get a slap on the wrist. Fay and Richwhite would be doing a long stretch of porridge if they had been caught outside NZ Instead they paid some petty cash for them to settle.

I realise its a waste of breath trying to explain why good corporate governance is good business to people like our pollies and civil servants who lack the ethics and morals to understand good concepts universially adopted and followed mean a win win. .

These nutwings are hard wired for a win lose.They win Everyone else loses.

There are questions of continuous disclosure improper shareholder activity and potential breaches of Sections 130 thru 138 of the Companies Act.

If the SC and the NZX are not currently investigating then we have the added situation of a potential breach by them of their statutory obligations.

Of course nothing will be done as usual. In the small cosy world of NZ business where nudge nudge wink wink is the abiding corporate governance policy.

Yes, I’ve thought the same thing. Although the desperate minor-party rats may be clinging to the sinking ship more tightly than would any thinking rat. I wonder if JK has offered them food and shelter insead of the election burrial that seems to be looming