GoodReturns
976494154
Jonathan Underhill
Jonathan Underhill
Save Story
News

Bridgecorp directors to be prosecuted

Monday 23rd of June 2008

The finance company claimed that it had never missed an interest or principal payment but had missed many payment deadlines in the first half of 2007, according to a statement from Registrar of Companies Neville Harris. The company was put in receivership in July last year.

Bridgecorp faces one charge under the Securities Act of "allotting debenture stock to members of the public while knowing that its prospectus was false," the statement said. Petricevic and Roest each face two charges under the Securities Act and one each under the Companies Act.

Between February and May 2007, Bridgecorp's late payments were more than NZ$16 million, the statement said.

Bridgecorp's receivers estimate the company owes about NZ$450 million. Petricevic and Roest are due to appear in Auckland District Court on July 29.

(businesswire.co.nz)

Want to read the full article?

Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.

You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.

Sign in
Previous Article Next Article
Latest News
Advice adds at least 5% a year, but clients can’t see most of it
Advice adds at least 5% a year, but clients can’t see most of it
4 min read
Adviser use of ETFs likely to continue to grow, Smart says
Adviser use of ETFs likely to continue to grow, Smart says
2 min read
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
6 min read
[Weekly Wrap] KiwiSaver in play; but outcome unclear
[Weekly Wrap] KiwiSaver in play; but outcome unclear
2 min read
Latest Comments
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
Paul Flood: The danger is that the 'goalposts' (regarding what is acceptable or unacceptable adviser conduct) may be susceptible to change. Our 'Principles based' legal/regulatory environment lends itself to “prevalence-induced concept change” over time, perhaps not so much in the written laws and Code, as in the interpretation of the prescribed principles.
1 day ago Steve Wright
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
Just a tip, if you use more than six, six letter words in a sentence you lose most Kiwi's. So avoid client/adviser confusion when writing your post or article if you would like it read and understood. Ironically, my last sentence was not likely read.
1 day ago Backstage
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
All things said are great aspirational goals for a great financial advice industry, it mirrors what both the legislation and the code requires. However, like most things discussed it talks about what's expected not how it's done. The hardest aspect of financial advice today isn't what it is, it is how it is done. The how only comes from those that have done it, the how is only provided with examples. Guidance documents that spell out what's required along side how it it done. We’re still dealing with the same issues we started with in 2021, figuring out the how. And figuring out the how in every advice business is consuming resources that could easily be shortcut by the FMA demonstrating what they are expecting. It's not about “do it this way” its about this is the sorts of things we’re looking for. In the absence of standards and expectations, guesswork prevails. That represents significant risk to FAPs and the result is onerous overcooked advice processes for multiple advice operations and undercooked she’ll be right for single operators focused on getting the work done. Both approaches have potential for harm and as its been said earlier, leaves advisers open to explain they haven't been speeding with the authorities have pulled them over. The advice industry needs guidance on the how we know the what already.
3 days ago Jon-Paul Hale
Who is responsible for notifying policy changes?
Sticking an oar in, while we have “service” requirements the expectation that an adviser is responsible for discussing said change is relying heavily on assumption. 1. That the client hasn't moved and contact details haven't been updated. It happens more often than many think. 2. It assumes there is a servicing agreement in place to provide service. Remember the requirement is to scope service not provide it. A client deciding to have ad-hoc service on their request is a legally valid position to have. 3. If there is a service agreement that's realistic to what is expected, how long does the adviser push the issue to have the discussion before moving on with everything else they have to do? Again, a point that is not clear in the guidance to date. The challenge of the present rules is the adviser is responsible for ensuring the client understands the advice provided. How do you ensure you're covering this if a client doesn't engage despite genuine attempts to manage it? There's still a lot of “what if’s” in this whole are we’re only going to have clarity on once someone is taken to task about it. But first we need to have clarity on what ongoing service actually is, because right now demonstrated by the direct providers a letter once per year with a please call if you want to discuss is the current minimum…
3 days ago Jon-Paul Hale
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
To correct errors in my previous post: "policies, templates, and controls" should read "policies, processes, systems and controls", and "is more conductive" should read "is more conducive".
3 days ago Paul Flood