But Tasmanian times .com.au in its so far 72 comments aint finished yet.
Link for ASIC below ...
My comment to them
John Gay, former chairman and CEO of Gunns, has been sentenced to a fine of $50000 for insider trading, trades that realised him an illegal return of $800000. He received no custodial sentence. Despite his admission of guilt, he has still profited around $750000, less legal costs on these illegal trades. I urge ASIC to appeal this manifestly inadequate sentence. Pat Caplice Reference Number: 87507597
44. In my opinion too much is being made of the distinction between knowing and “should have known”. Such clauses are common in insurance policies. A travel insurance policy might say, for example, that you don’t have to mention anything that the insurer should already know in the course of their business. Are we to assume, therefore, that insurance companies can decline to pay a claim by arguing that, while they certainly should have known something, they in fact didn’t? I don’t think so. When I see that clause in writing in a policy - and assuming we are talking about something that the insurer genuinely should know - the wording is quite unambiguous to me.
So how come it is possible to get a dramatically more lenient sentence for insider trading by claiming exactly the same kind of thing?
Posted by Doug Nichols on 24/08/13 at 12:10 PM
45. I am totally in favour of flooding ASIC with complaints about the John Gay judgment by Justice Porter. Staggering how blatant it is! A two fingered message to the people of Tasmania!
I have sent the following message to ASIC. Thanks to #43 Pat Caplice for the link
I am a retired businessman. My complaint is about the derisory penalty imposed on John Gay, former chairman AND CEO of Gunns Limited. The $50,000 fine imposed in a major Insider Trading case is manifestly inadequate. From news reports, ASIC will be well aware of the situation.
I argue that ASIC must appeal the Tasmanian Supreme Court judgment in the High Court of Australia. Or make use of other legislation and/or laws to seek a more appropriate penalty.
Regrettably, the Tasmanian Court decision serves only to reinforce long-standing perceptions of a corrupt legal process in this state.
Posted by Paul de Burgh-Day on 24/08/13 at 12:10 PM
46. John Hawkins, #33, should remember that the omission of inconvenient facts, particularly jaw-droppers and game-changers, as a judicial discretion is well established in Tasmanian law.
Do you wish any more examples?
John Hayward
Posted by john hayward on 24/08/13 at 12:16 PM
47. Thank you Pat Caplice (#43). I used the link you provided to also register a question with ASIC. I had a bit of trouble ... Fingers crossed, I hope it got through ... but I’m not sure, so I’ll have a second go at it. ... Here is the (final) text of what I posted:
“Will ASIC appeal against the conviction and the $50,000 fine imposed on John Gay yesterday by Justice Porter?
The judge’s remarks obscured the fact that John Gay, as well as being the then Chairman of the Board of Gunns Ltd, was also the company’s Chief Executive Officer and as such had day to day knowledge of Gunns’ true position, not only before he sold the shares, and before the compilation of the ‘inside report’, but also, before the earlier AGM - the meeting at which in Justice Porter’s own words:
“The reports did not reveal the significant extent of Gunns’ financial underperformance, nor did they provide any specific figures about the company’s revenue, EBIT or PBT in the year to date. Whilst Gunns’ financial underperformance was alluded to, the information in issue was not made publicly available. That is, the monthly figures provided to Board members were not specifically given to those attending the AGM, nor were they released to the market at that time. Such monthly figures were not customarily released.”
Thus, the sentencing decision of Justice Porter is flawed, and I ask that on behalf of the community, ASIC make an appeal against this perverse sentencing decision.”
For those who think John Gay’s slap-on-the-wrist sentence was inappropriate, why not tell ASIC, now, at ...
