The only suggestion from the article pointing to this is the following (and even this is inconclusive):
..."Grant Samuel's appointment came after the law firm hired Bryce Houghton as chief financial officer in November. Mr Houghton is said to be close to Grant Samuel and has worked with the advisory firm in the past."
If however correct, then the subsequent appointments of PWC (Board), MGN (banking syndicate) and FTI (banks), suggests that things have deteriorated and GS has not been successful at its task.
Why?
Because of the following comments from 17/12/15:
..."coupled with the commencement of a review of the Company’s approach to financial forecasting by new Group Chief Financial Officer Bryce Houghton and independent advisors appointed by the Board, has resulted in 2016 financial year guidance being reconsidered."
Add to this that MGN and FTI then came in on 6/1/16.
I doubt therefore that anyone would be happy if GS has been there, from the outset, and then all these other appointments have been made since.
Equally, if they have been there since the outset and all these other leaks /disclosures have occurred without there being any mention of GS until now, also points to insiders breaking ranks which means, stormy weather ahead.
Far more likely then that GS has been brought in more recently in which case, their task is to make magic happen, as the alternative to this suggests that GS has not been successful at its task to date. As The Australian suggests:
..."Slater & Gordon has drafted in corporate adviser Grant Samuel in a move that may suggest the company is becoming increasingly nervous about its debt position."
Balanced against all this, if GS was an early December appointment, then today's news is trending bad. If however, GS was more recently appointed, then the news is neutral to moderately positive. But again, its got everything to do with perception and control and on each of these fronts, SGH is not doing a good job.
Expand
