FMA to file civil proceedings against directors and promoters of Hanover Finance seeking penalties and compensation for investors

FMA to file civil proceedings against directors and promoters of Hanover Finance seeking penalties and compensation for investors

By Bernard Hickey

The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) has announced it will file civil claims next year against the directors and promoters of Hanover Finance, Hanover Capital and United Finance, seeking penalties and compensation for investors.

The proceedings will relate to the 2007 prospectuses and subsequent advertisements, after which about NZ$35 million worth of investments were made in Hanover Finance, the FMA said.

“This has been a significant investigation for FMA, focusing on a period in which investor deposits totalled approximately NZ$35 million," said FMA CEO Sean Hughes.

“We have carefully considered a substantial volume of relevant material and we’ve had the benefit of independent advice. We have now reached a point in the investigation where we are confident that we have good grounds to commence civil proceedings. We believe this is the most effective regulatory response and we’re confident it offers the greatest opportunity for success," Hughes said.

“If successful, FMA’s action may assist other parties in bringing related claims. We are also examining avenues under section 34 to seek compensation from other parties on behalf of aggrieved investors,” he said. (See more on the FMA's so-called section 34 power, under which it can potentially take action against the likes of auditors and trustees here).

“Given the public interest in the investigation we want to keep the market as informed as we can.”

Hughes later told Interest.co.nz that criminal charges from the FMA were unlikely given the evidence currently seen, but that he couldn't speak for the Serious Fraud Office, which has said it is investigating Hanover.

He said he expected to lay civil charges in the first couple of months of 2012 that would look at whether the directors and promoters misled investors by 'painting a very rosy picture' of the company's affairs in the prospectus.

Hughes also said further civil action could see claims for amounts beyond the NZ$35 million referred to so far, which involve potential penalties of up to NZ$500,000 for each of the promoters.

"I don't want to say that that's some sort of lid on what's being sought."

'Disappointing move' former chairman Muir says

In a statement former Hanover Finance chairman Greg Muir said the FMA's move to file civil proceedings against Hanover directors was disappointing and the directors would defend themselves against the FMA's claims.

“The FMA investigators were given a substantial amount of evidence demonstrating that the directors conducted themselves responsibly, with appropriate rigour, and made judgments they believed were in the best interests of the company and its investors on the information available to them at the time," Muir said.

“Reports from an expert forensic accountancy firm and the company’s lawyers concluded there was nothing materially untruthful in the prospectus and that there is no evidence of any misconduct by the Board. The directors will be defending the claims when the FMA is in a position to provide further details.”

An FMA spokesman said the authority had decided not to name those directors and promoters facing civil claims until the claims had actually been laid.

The owners of Hanover Finance and Hanover Capital were Eric Watson and Mark Hotchin.

Directors of the Hanover companies included Mark Hotchin, Muir, David Henry and Tipene O'Regan, but not Watson.

See Gareth Vaughan's article from November 19 last year about the Securities Commission (the predecessor to the FMA) announcing it was considering laying criminal charges against Hanover directors in the new year of 2011.

(Updated with Greg Muir's statement, link to story about section 34 powers, background, detail, and non comment from FMA on criminal charges aspect; Comments from FMA CEO on criminal charges).

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

8 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

FYI these are civil charges, not criminal charges. We also don't know (although some might assume) that Watson and Hotchin will be charged.

The FMA has said they won't name those charged until the charges are actually laid.

cheers

Bernard

this is going to cost the taxpayer millions why not sieze all their assets and sell them to repay the investors and then revoke their their passports so they can't hide overseas.

Because we have a legal process.

Otherwide its the lynch mob......"oh he looked at me funny...so I smashed his face in" 

What would be the diference?

regards

 

Perhaps more interesting is that the FMA has only laid civil charges not criminal charges. So despite a huge hiss and roar from the FMA and 12-24 months investigation this is actually more of a face saving exercise by the FMA than prosecution. I don't hold out much hope for the FMA's case at all.

That said, we're still waiting to hear the outcome of the SFO investigation.

I assume civil is easier to prove? and allows recovery of money sooner...  If the main investors /claimants are OAPs speed is quite important.

I seem to recall OJ Simpson got off criminal charges but the civil one(s) turned him into a pauper....

regards

Will Richard Long be in the gun as well?

I have updated this story with comments from a statement issued on behalf of Greg Muir.