The truth about Dixon Son of Kerry and Macquarie
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awsome reading Insider person, good investigation. Things like this always remind me of some right thinking British Brigadier who when presented with the Operation Phoenix assaination plan in Northern Ireland said, "It will always become common knowledge in the end". Something everyone should keep in mind when doing the big deals.
Oh and sorry for starting the second page, make sure if you're starting you read the first posts they are enlightning to say the least.
Oh and sorry for starting the second page, make sure if you're starting you read the first posts they are enlightning to say the least.
Last edited by Whiskey Oscar Golf; 31st May 2007 at 02:30. Reason: to make sure people read the whole thread
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still can't believe nothing has been done by the powers to be about this debacle.
Just a little research I've done to maybe get the ball rolling again.
The director as a fiduciary:
At it's most basic level a fiduciary is a party appointed to act for the benefit of another and whose powers could be exercised to the detriment of that other.
A fiduciary duty is more onerous than that imposed upon parties in an arms length relationship as so eloquently expressed by Cardozo CJ in the old but still often cited case Meinhard v Salmon (1928)
"Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone , but punctillio of an honour the most sensitive, is then the standard behaviour."
Duties of a fiduciary:
A director as a fiduciary is subject to the following broard duties:
- to act honestly and in good faith
- to act with reasonable care and diligence.
More specifically, a fidicary's duties include:
- to use discretions honestly and with reasonable care and diligence
for the purposes for which they were conferred
- not to promote personal interest by making or pusuing a gain in
circumstances in which there is a conflict between personal interest
and the interest of another for whom the fiduciary is appointed to act
- not to act to promote the interest of the third party where there is a
conflict between the duties owed by the fiduciary to another on the
hand and the duties owed to the third party on the other hand.
I wonder if young Mr Packer realises this and did the harry holt?
Just a little research I've done to maybe get the ball rolling again.
The director as a fiduciary:
At it's most basic level a fiduciary is a party appointed to act for the benefit of another and whose powers could be exercised to the detriment of that other.
A fiduciary duty is more onerous than that imposed upon parties in an arms length relationship as so eloquently expressed by Cardozo CJ in the old but still often cited case Meinhard v Salmon (1928)
"Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone , but punctillio of an honour the most sensitive, is then the standard behaviour."
Duties of a fiduciary:
A director as a fiduciary is subject to the following broard duties:
- to act honestly and in good faith
- to act with reasonable care and diligence.
More specifically, a fidicary's duties include:
- to use discretions honestly and with reasonable care and diligence
for the purposes for which they were conferred
- not to promote personal interest by making or pusuing a gain in
circumstances in which there is a conflict between personal interest
and the interest of another for whom the fiduciary is appointed to act
- not to act to promote the interest of the third party where there is a
conflict between the duties owed by the fiduciary to another on the
hand and the duties owed to the third party on the other hand.
I wonder if young Mr Packer realises this and did the harry holt?
Last edited by max autobrakes; 25th Jun 2007 at 10:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Max for bringing it back to the top....
Dixon is hoping it slides off the radar and he pretends he is running the business for the benefit of all "stakeholders"
There are numerous identifiable breaches of the Corporations Act.There have been several misleading statements through the meida to the ASX.
The mere fact that he personally stood to gain so much PERSONALLY from the success of the transaction would imply he had motive and opportunity. Furthermore given the script allegedly followed by APA was exactly as drafted by Dixon he has the intent.
These three things motive, opportunity and intent form the basis of investigation.
The transaction should not be allowed to just go away.
There was misconduct, impropriety and dare I say the basis for one of the biggest corporate frauds this country has yet witnessed.
However, as the articles from Mr. Kohler suggest this thing runs deep and has its ugly tentacles throughout many levels of corporate Australia.
ASIC where the bloody hell are you?
Dixon is hoping it slides off the radar and he pretends he is running the business for the benefit of all "stakeholders"
There are numerous identifiable breaches of the Corporations Act.There have been several misleading statements through the meida to the ASX.
The mere fact that he personally stood to gain so much PERSONALLY from the success of the transaction would imply he had motive and opportunity. Furthermore given the script allegedly followed by APA was exactly as drafted by Dixon he has the intent.
These three things motive, opportunity and intent form the basis of investigation.
The transaction should not be allowed to just go away.
There was misconduct, impropriety and dare I say the basis for one of the biggest corporate frauds this country has yet witnessed.
However, as the articles from Mr. Kohler suggest this thing runs deep and has its ugly tentacles throughout many levels of corporate Australia.
ASIC where the bloody hell are you?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that there was too much money at stake.
As with most things in this world it does not matter what you do ........only who you know that counts...
As with most things in this world it does not matter what you do ........only who you know that counts...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will have to wait until after the election before anything comes to light..............
...If it ever does, and being a Sydney thing, like the alleged murder of Rene Rivkin's chauffer's girlfriend and the Alpine Press Fire with tentacles going in every direction (including into Qantas), we might never know the truth.
...If it ever does, and being a Sydney thing, like the alleged murder of Rene Rivkin's chauffer's girlfriend and the Alpine Press Fire with tentacles going in every direction (including into Qantas), we might never know the truth.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd be surprised if anything DID come of this. Too many players, here, from the big end of town. This will just fade into distantant memory... you can count on it; it has aready been engineered thus.
Funny how there has been nothing printed of the obvious connection between many of the major APA stakeholders and the demise of Ansett. The various players in that tragic event have re-surfaced yet again. Was it a coincidence that The Minister for Aviation, Senior QF management and Max More-Millions were in Wellington, Sept/Oct 2001? Fat chance..
Was it then a surprise that the NZ government subsequently decided [I]NOT[I]to allow SQ to increase its equity in Air NZ to 49%, thus bailing out Ansett?
The moves in this game of chess have been planned well in advance. Remove the major competitor, foster a neo-monopoly, screw 16,000 families over so as Packer et-al[I can become richer. It all seems so obvious nowUndoubtably, this aspect, too, is an "elephant in the room".
Funny how there has been nothing printed of the obvious connection between many of the major APA stakeholders and the demise of Ansett. The various players in that tragic event have re-surfaced yet again. Was it a coincidence that The Minister for Aviation, Senior QF management and Max More-Millions were in Wellington, Sept/Oct 2001? Fat chance..
Was it then a surprise that the NZ government subsequently decided [I]NOT[I]to allow SQ to increase its equity in Air NZ to 49%, thus bailing out Ansett?
The moves in this game of chess have been planned well in advance. Remove the major competitor, foster a neo-monopoly, screw 16,000 families over so as Packer et-al[I can become richer. It all seems so obvious nowUndoubtably, this aspect, too, is an "elephant in the room".
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing surprises me........
Unfortunately regulators only act in the event of something fairly disastrous. The financial regulators are no different to CASA - wait until there's a prang with dead bodies lying around, then take serious action against individuals. Until then, it's "steady as she goes". Even then, Dixon, et al, are far too well connected in both business and Government for any action to be taken against them, as distasteful as it may seem.
Unfortunately regulators only act in the event of something fairly disastrous. The financial regulators are no different to CASA - wait until there's a prang with dead bodies lying around, then take serious action against individuals. Until then, it's "steady as she goes". Even then, Dixon, et al, are far too well connected in both business and Government for any action to be taken against them, as distasteful as it may seem.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NSW,Australia
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of thread drift
Jumping Ship or just a bit of pocket money!! 
Change of Director's Interest Notice
Announced by: QAN
Announced on: 25/06/2007 16:31:45
Words: 824
Status: Not market sensitive (N)
View original PDF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 3YChange of Director's Interest NoticePeter Allan GreggAppendix 3Y Page 1Date of Notice: 25 June 2007Rule 3.19A.2Appendix 3YChange of Director's Interest NoticeInformation or documents not available now must be given to ASX as soon as available. Information and
documents given to ASX become ASX's property and may be made public.Introduced 30/9/2001.Name of entityQANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITEDABN16 009 661 901We (the entity) give ASX the following information under listing rule 3.19A.2 and as agent for the
director for the purposes of section 205G of the Corporations Act.Name of DirectorPeter Allan GreggDate of last notice26 October 2006Part 1 - Change of director's relevant interests in securitiesIn the case of a trust, this includes interests in the trust made available by the responsible entity of the trustNote: In the case of a company, interests which come within paragraph (i) of the definition of "notifiable interest of a director"
should be disclosed in this part.Direct or indirect interestDirect InterestNature of indirect interest
(including registered holder)Note: Provide details of the circumstances giving rise to
the relevant interest.N/ADate of change19 June 2007No. of securities held prior to change485,029 Direct Interest620,500 Indirect InterestClassOrdinary SharesNumber acquiredN/ANumber disposed200,000Value/ConsiderationNote: If consideration is non-cash, provide details and
estimated valuation$5.7673Appendix 3YChange of Director's Interest NoticePeter Allan GreggAppendix 3Y Page 2Date of Notice: 25 June 2007No. of securities held after change285,029 Direct Interest620,500 Indirect InterestNature of changeExample: on-market trade, off-market trade, exercise of
options, issue of securities under dividend reinvestment
plan, participation in buy-backOn-market sale of sharesPart 2 * Change of director's interests in contractsNote: In the case of a company, interests which come within paragraph (ii) of the definition of "notifiable interest of a director"
should be disclosed in this part.Detail of contractN/ANature of interestName of registered holder
(if issued securities)Date of changeNo. and class of securities to which
interest related prior to changeNote: Details are only required for a contract in relation to
which the interest has changedInterest acquiredInterest disposedValue/ConsiderationNote: If consideration is non-cash, provide details and an
estimated valuationInterest after change
Advertise with Us | Fairfax Digital Network Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Member Agreement
Help | Contact Us
Copyright © 2002. Any unauthorised use or copying prohibited.
Change of Director's Interest Notice
Announced by: QAN
Announced on: 25/06/2007 16:31:45
Words: 824
Status: Not market sensitive (N)
View original PDF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 3YChange of Director's Interest NoticePeter Allan GreggAppendix 3Y Page 1Date of Notice: 25 June 2007Rule 3.19A.2Appendix 3YChange of Director's Interest NoticeInformation or documents not available now must be given to ASX as soon as available. Information and
documents given to ASX become ASX's property and may be made public.Introduced 30/9/2001.Name of entityQANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITEDABN16 009 661 901We (the entity) give ASX the following information under listing rule 3.19A.2 and as agent for the
director for the purposes of section 205G of the Corporations Act.Name of DirectorPeter Allan GreggDate of last notice26 October 2006Part 1 - Change of director's relevant interests in securitiesIn the case of a trust, this includes interests in the trust made available by the responsible entity of the trustNote: In the case of a company, interests which come within paragraph (i) of the definition of "notifiable interest of a director"
should be disclosed in this part.Direct or indirect interestDirect InterestNature of indirect interest
(including registered holder)Note: Provide details of the circumstances giving rise to
the relevant interest.N/ADate of change19 June 2007No. of securities held prior to change485,029 Direct Interest620,500 Indirect InterestClassOrdinary SharesNumber acquiredN/ANumber disposed200,000Value/ConsiderationNote: If consideration is non-cash, provide details and
estimated valuation$5.7673Appendix 3YChange of Director's Interest NoticePeter Allan GreggAppendix 3Y Page 2Date of Notice: 25 June 2007No. of securities held after change285,029 Direct Interest620,500 Indirect InterestNature of changeExample: on-market trade, off-market trade, exercise of
options, issue of securities under dividend reinvestment
plan, participation in buy-backOn-market sale of sharesPart 2 * Change of director's interests in contractsNote: In the case of a company, interests which come within paragraph (ii) of the definition of "notifiable interest of a director"
should be disclosed in this part.Detail of contractN/ANature of interestName of registered holder
(if issued securities)Date of changeNo. and class of securities to which
interest related prior to changeNote: Details are only required for a contract in relation to
which the interest has changedInterest acquiredInterest disposedValue/ConsiderationNote: If consideration is non-cash, provide details and an
estimated valuationInterest after change
Advertise with Us | Fairfax Digital Network Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Member Agreement
Help | Contact Us
Copyright © 2002. Any unauthorised use or copying prohibited.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or put another way Capt. Cynical.
Qantas CFO pockets $1m from share sale
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
According to an article by The Age, Qantas’ chief financial officer Peter Gregg has taken advantage of the airline’s high stock price and sold a large parcel of shares worth $1.15 million.
In a statement to the stock exchange, Gregg sold 200,000 shares at $5.77 each. The CFO received 166,000 shares under Qantas’ long-term incentive plan in August last year. Despite the sale, Gregg still has direct interest in 285,000 Qantas shares and an indirect interest in 620,500 shares.
According to The Age, Shaw Stockbroking aviation analyst Brent Mitchell is surprised by the executive’s decision to sell the shares.
“Obviously he has an opportunity to realise some money now that the takeover has gone away but it does surprise me that he has sold,” Mitchell was quoted as saying in The Age.
“Given there is still that uncertainty going forward surrounding fuel costs, competition, those sort of issues ..… he's obviously being cautious just the same as some other investors would be,” he added.
Qantas shares closed at $5.65 yesterday.
Qantas CFO pockets $1m from share sale
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
According to an article by The Age, Qantas’ chief financial officer Peter Gregg has taken advantage of the airline’s high stock price and sold a large parcel of shares worth $1.15 million.
In a statement to the stock exchange, Gregg sold 200,000 shares at $5.77 each. The CFO received 166,000 shares under Qantas’ long-term incentive plan in August last year. Despite the sale, Gregg still has direct interest in 285,000 Qantas shares and an indirect interest in 620,500 shares.
According to The Age, Shaw Stockbroking aviation analyst Brent Mitchell is surprised by the executive’s decision to sell the shares.
“Obviously he has an opportunity to realise some money now that the takeover has gone away but it does surprise me that he has sold,” Mitchell was quoted as saying in The Age.
“Given there is still that uncertainty going forward surrounding fuel costs, competition, those sort of issues ..… he's obviously being cautious just the same as some other investors would be,” he added.
Qantas shares closed at $5.65 yesterday.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last night's Lateline........
The program commented on ASIC's inability or unwillingness to tackle insider trading.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/busin...6/s1961726.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/busin...6/s1961726.htm
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I can understand ASIC's reticence to act. Insider trading is exceedingly hard to make stick. Usually cases are circumstantial as there is rarely a piece of 'smoking gun' evidence. And, not only does there have to be the actual act of trading, but usually intent is involved in market abuse cases.
ASIC would have to throw lots of resources into any investigation and there would be a strong possibility it would come to nought.
Just remember you have consumer sovreignty as to where you shop/invest etc. so if you choose not to use the services of companies involved in the bid, that's a personal decision.
ASIC would have to throw lots of resources into any investigation and there would be a strong possibility it would come to nought.
Just remember you have consumer sovreignty as to where you shop/invest etc. so if you choose not to use the services of companies involved in the bid, that's a personal decision.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The insider trading isn't the issue. The market runs on it. Mum and Dad investors provide liquidity for the barons to profit...
I am talking about the meetings, I am talking of phone calls and indeed the fact that the posturing took place a long time before the "bid" was announced. Minutes are usually kept of board meeetings....
More than one diary enty has got someone in big trouble.
The money he personally stood to gain was the incentive for doing what he did. An $11billion deal isn't dreamed up overnight.
The conjurers of the modern age wear a collar and tie.
Apart from that the three card trick has been the same throughout history...
I am talking about the meetings, I am talking of phone calls and indeed the fact that the posturing took place a long time before the "bid" was announced. Minutes are usually kept of board meeetings....
More than one diary enty has got someone in big trouble.
The money he personally stood to gain was the incentive for doing what he did. An $11billion deal isn't dreamed up overnight.
The conjurers of the modern age wear a collar and tie.
Apart from that the three card trick has been the same throughout history...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the smooshing that a certain individual did at a cocktail party in Canberra .All and sundry commented on how this individual was obviously acting for APA not the share holders.What is Fiduciary duty?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what will
happen after the election. the bunker has gone very quite on changes to the business as APA would have done. does it mean the bunker is shut until after the election then a new equity deal will be put to the board?????the only good news i heard is that GD is leaving in june 09
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very much in line
with their usual play(latest profit upgrade). keep it going till after the election and there is still a discount in the share price. re-jigg the bid and take out the 3+ billion in cash qf has and dispose of the targeted assets as per first take over proposal. there is still plenty of fees in it for maq and co.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest the Qantas unions get together with the Share Holders Association and who ever else it might take and come up with some very probing questions that even Dixon and Co can't squirm out of.
Should not be too hard to set up something with the likes of Today Tonight or whatever the present incarnation of todays current affairs show is. Who knows ,you might even interest Channel 9 seeing as the "owner" there (or is that past owner?) is so well liked and what with his connection with the Qantas Board and all, should be highly news worthy as well as embarassing.
Should not be too hard to set up something with the likes of Today Tonight or whatever the present incarnation of todays current affairs show is. Who knows ,you might even interest Channel 9 seeing as the "owner" there (or is that past owner?) is so well liked and what with his connection with the Qantas Board and all, should be highly news worthy as well as embarassing.
