Horsetrader1, I respect your reasoning with regards to trying to put bad things behind us, but where do us as shareholders, and where should the corporate watchdog draw the line.
The fact of the matter is that this man has possibly committed an offence under the CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 183 Use of information--civil obligations.
OH had inside knowledge and access to information regarding Martabe because he was, and had been, a Director or other officer or employee of a corporation who improperly used the information to:
a) gain a financial advantage for himself or someone else; being Hong Kong-listed G-Resources, and
b) This information eventually caused detriment to the corporation OZL and its shareholders by selling Martabe at loss.
Note 1: Hiss duty by law continues after he stops being an officer or employee of the corporation - OZL.
Now, this man in my view continues to unethically and intentionally mislead the public whether it is here or in HK. It is well published that he has had heavy involvement in the company that purchased Martabe for a bargain basement price.
The financial loss to us as shareholders, and OZL as a corporate entity could be seen as (causing detriment) in accordance with sub para b) above.
He has caused detriment to OZL and its shareholders by using his position as a former Director to gain an advantage (sub para.a) by using his influence to secure the sale of Martabe so that he, and the company of which he had a major interest, could gain a financial and corporate advantage.
AM in my view, should also be implicated as an accomplice in this action.
OH in my personal opinion, would fit the proofs of the above sub paragraphs a) and b).
Let me put it this way Horsetrader, If an armed robber robs a bank, and we all know that he committed the crime, do we just sit by and say “oh well, that’s water under the bridge, lets just move on and put it behind us?
With respect to you Horsetrader, that just does not wash with me and it will not wash with thousands of other OZL shareholders.
The general public would expect the authorities to investigate and pursue the alleged robber so that he can be called to account in front of a judge and jury.
The AGE article about OH goes on to say that no public explanation was given to Hong Kong-listed G-Resource shareholders for his decision to sell the $US31.6 million ($A37.6 million) holding - meant to be escrowed for three years - less than three months after he convinced investors to help pump $US587 million into the company.
This is the type of unethical and misleading behaviour that this man continues to audaciously display. I am thinking he may have off loaded these shares because he may be on the ASIC watch list?
Hopefully, the Australian Corporate Watchdogs are looking at him as a result of having used his previous position as an OZL Director, to gain a financial advantage for himself or someone else, that being the Hong King listed company.
The Age article reports him to have said that his shares were sold without his knowledge by his ''financier''.
This man must have serious problems lying straight in bed at night, and his wooden nose must have grown about an extra 6 feet long by now?
I am thinking of drafting a letter to ASIC myself and highlighting the fact that, CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 183 Use of information--civil obligations, with regards to some OZL Directors, has been breached?
I shouldn’t have to go to these lengths, as you would be aware, ASIC have a duty to the shareholders and the tax payer to investigate potential and blatant breaches of the Corporations ACT.
IMO, this should have already commenced, there is enough information available to the market now that suggests a breach of the Act has in fact occurred. The question remains, why has this not been on their corporate watchdog radar?
I have to disagree with you Horse trader, this is not just water under the bridge, and nor should it be treated as such, in my view it appears that an offence may have been committed?
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?