Tasman Capital and WSD
February 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm by David FarrarNBR has a story on the ongoing saga of Tasman Capital and Progressive Deputy Leader Matt Robson:
Former MP Matt Robson and Tasman Capital are forging ahead with plans to list WSD Global Markets on the NZX, despite a Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged money laundering operations by WSD’s related company in the Cook Islands.
SFO director Grant Liddell last night confirmed to NBR that the Cook Islands-based WSBC and “associated entities” were under investigation. WSBC out-sources its margin trading operations to WSD Global Markets. …
Accusations of connections between WSD director Riaz Patel and illegal activity around the globe have been made public this week, with journalist Ian Wishart also linking the alleged laundered money with international terrorism.
It is all rather murky. NBR reports Robson is suing Wishart:
Mr Robson says defamation proceedings against Mr Wishart have now been launched and he rubbishes the connection Mr Wishart had made between Mr Patel’s businesses and international terrorism.
The original article from TGIF is here. And Wishart also blogs that Robson tried and failed to get an ex parte injunction against the story.
I would suggest people be cautious with any comments they make, noting this appears to be heading to the courts. All I’ll comment is to say it seems unwise to try and get listed on the NZX while the SFO is investigating you.
Related posts:
- TGIF
- The trans-Tasman relationship
- The trans-Tasman productivity report
- Treasury talks capital gains tax
February 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Ian has not revealed that the injunction failed, the post you link to was written yesterday.
However, as revealed on http://lukewebster.wordpress.com, the initial stages of the injunction attempting to stop the distribution of the latest issue of INVESTIGATE has failed (as far as I am aware).
Vote:February 18th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
David, you forgot to mention the real story which is the involvement of the hapless and worthless National Party list member from Epsom.
[DPF: As I understand it he is a very small minority shareholder, not in an executive role like Robson]
Vote:February 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Isn’t that the trouble with distributing your hard graft as a pdf? Anyone can redistribute.
Vote:February 18th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Adolf, as DPF mentions, he is a minor shareholder (very minor, 5000 shares I believe) who is involved through a family trust.
Vote:February 18th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Lukas – It was no ‘initial stages’, Matt & co were hoping for a ‘king hit’ with the interim injunction. The poor judge in such cases has to make a quick decision on whatever facts and hearsay is available. The key issue for injunctions is balance of convenience. If an award of damages would put things right, no injunction. If the act or proposed act would irrepairably destroy someone’s reputation or blast an enterprise out of the water. Nowhere does the application mention the general public interest especially with respect to the forthcoming NZX listing. Another thing, they mention two precedent cases in the application, but omitted an even more important case – Klissers Farmhouse Bakery v Quality Bakers (unfortunately I cannot find a non-subscription link to this case). If the Judge was aware of Klissers (as he most probably was), he may not have been amused.
Time and time again, marginal and worse business ventures try and hide behind interim injunctions, but I suspect judges are viewing these with a more and more jaundiced eye. Like a health professional who tried to torpedo a disciplinary hearing the day before when diaries had been filled, flights booked, etc, the Judge told him where to stick it. Or a lawyer who put a judge crook when obtaining an injunction to stop a mortgagee sale (the bank had fallen over backwards to try and accommodate the borrower but had had enough).
Vote:February 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
DPF, Lucas. So what? 500 shares or 500,000 shares? Still a very dumb place to be.
Vote:February 19th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Then you need to read the response from Richard Worth, Adolf. A far cry from Robson’s injunction.
Worth’s trusts shares approximately 5000. Total shares available 1.9million (by memory)
the only embarrasing point for Worth is that he was to be on the board of Directors with Robson, and unless it never got to serious consideration stage owing to his MP repsonsiblities, he should have investigated who he was about to do business with. The exactly chronology is not clear from Wishart’s article.
Vote:February 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Methinks Mr Robson doth protest too much……
Vote: