related parties

Without Prejudice.

Just copying over this thread from yesterday on general as of course it is of interest to CVI...(see below my post)

I'm of the opinion that all the dirty linen might as well come out of the cupboard while the share is trading at lows.

A while back, I found some information quite accidentally, when someone in the CVI office was a bit over enthusiastic in chatting families.

Of course, since then I've been trying to piece together whether this is material information, or whether it doesn't need to come up at all.

So, time for you to decide - I think Smyth SHOULD have reported the behind the scenes in more detail personally, but I'm sure that he'll have left himself legally O.K.

During chat time, I found that Mark Smyths son in law is Marcus Locke, working not too far from the CVI office, so the regular drop ins were expected.
The name rang bells, so in my research I found that Locke had been issued 1 million free options for 'consultancy' work at last years EGM.

Now - maybe he DID consult, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this - but maybe it was just another hand out? I don't know.
Of course, they can now find something to show that he DID in fact do some consulting - but looking up Marcus Locke on Google, I find a full time Professional Forex trader?

I would be keen to know what consulting, and why it merited a million options...but most of all, why wasn't it stated that it was a 'family' or related party transaction?

Thoughts?

2 or 3 of us trying to get to the bottom of some of these things.....then hopefully we can move on and upwards again.
Whether it's with Smyth or not remains to be seen.

question re related party
Forum: ASX - GENERAL (Back)
dock

bluesdog
Post #: 256642
Start of thread:
IP: 124.148.xxx.xxx
Views: 134


To view the full post without scrolling please use the full width view or single post view If an Australian listed company issued an options package for services rendered to say the CEO's son-in-law, would the fact that he was the son in law of the CEO have to be disclosed to shareholders?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bluesdog
Unexpectedly Disobedient...



19/10/08 12:55 (View) Back Post Reply Options: Post OptionsPost New MessagePost ReplyAdd User to FavouritesAdd Stock to FavouritesEmail to a FriendIgnore MemberIgnore StockReport TOU Violation


Baron1
Post #: 256643
In Reply to msg: #256642
IP: 122.111.xxx.xxx
Views: 106


To view the full post without scrolling please use the full width view or single post view Hi Bluesdog, I am no lawyer but yes I would think any relationship that could prejudice a decision would have to be disclosed. As I said I am no lawyer but have a limited background and it looks like a potential conflict of interest.

19/10/08 13:09 (View) Back Post Reply Options: Post OptionsPost New MessagePost ReplyAdd User to FavouritesAdd Stock to FavouritesEmail to a FriendIgnore MemberIgnore StockReport TOU Violation


hermit7
Post #: 256645
In Reply to msg: #256643
IP: 220.83.xxx.xxx
Sentiment: None
Disclosure: No Stock Held
Views: 96


To view the full post without scrolling please use the full width view or single post view s.191 Corporations Law

Link http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s191.html

19/10/08 13:17 (View) Back Post Reply Options: Post OptionsPost New MessagePost ReplyAdd User to FavouritesAdd Stock to FavouritesEmail to a FriendIgnore MemberIgnore StockReport TOU Violation


123enen
Post #: 256647
In Reply to msg: #256645
IP: 124.189.xxx.xxx
Views: 94


To view the full post without scrolling please use the full width view or single post view Hermit7

I suspect that S191 relates to a directors Material personal interest not the interest of other persons no matter how close.

Probably more relevant may be S228
Definition of related partes.
Relatives of directors and spouses.

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 228
Related parties
Controlling entities

Directors and their spouses
(2) The following persons are related parties of a public company:
(a) directors of the public company;
(b) directors (if any) of an entity that controls the public company;
(d) spouses and de facto spouses of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a),(b) and (c).

Relatives of directors and spouses
(3) The following relatives of persons referred to in subsection (2) are related parties of the public company:
(a) parents;
(b) children

Looks like "in laws" are not included as related party., esecially for Teflon CEO's