I could give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that the...

I could give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that the did not intend to mislead.

Then then I'd have to think that they were just completely disllusioned about their abilty to restore shareholder value, they had no had no skills in assessing a large company's debt obligations, and they had no insight into the legal obligations and the potential of dilution for a company that has Sparks and Beppa type shareholders.

This said I'd have to think that they were clearly not up to the job and misrepresened themselves to be people with the skills to manage a large multi bil $ company, and that all up they were completely out of there depth.

I could think too that the GFC was an excuse, but did the GFC affect revenues at Dalrymple Bay - no, Powerco NZ revenues _ no, interest rates yes but they had already secured a most of the debt at pre GFC prices, the BNB management fee - no that was reduced to nothing, PD Port yes i'll concede but not to a cripling extent.

But all that thinking would be thinking too much like a loser (and I suppose technically I am).But to take up on you legal terminology of was there a deliberate intention to mislead, I'd say that there more than likely was.

I think the bottom line to the post mortem to the death of BBI was they paid far too much for Alinta.

The misleading from the board came after they realised this which I would expect occurred to them the moment the deal was done.

From this date on the board statements intended to mislead investors that they they could manage the unmanageable which was the extremely high borrowings that resulted from the Alinta deal.

As BBI fell into its death spiral the board continued to mislead, only the announcements escalated into statements of denial.

It would be interesting to put the recent announcemens to the test as to whether the assurrances and promisies of improving shareholder value could have been made by a CEO with reasonable intelligence, and with a basic knowledge of the companies debt structure, cash flow, and preference share legalstic position, without that person believing that he was misleading investors, stretching the truth, not disclosing all the important mtters that he should discose.

I'd say that if this test was carried out then the intention to mislead would be found.

Seahawk











Well if I wasn't misled I suffered from the misbelef that the CEO and team were able to do their job competently.


Seahawk