Feltex directors seek identity of UK funder for class action, want Gavigan ousted
(BusinessDesk) - The directors for failed carpet maker Feltex want to know the identity of a British backer for a looming class action, and want to oust Tony Gavigan, the driving force behind the proceedings, the Court of Appeal heard today.
The directors of the company at the time of its 2004 float don't have enough assurance their costs will be covered if they successfully defend the class suit being brought by Feltex shareholder Eric Houghton on behalf of some 3,000 other investors, lawyer David Cooper told Justices Mark O'Regan, Tony Randerson and Rhys Harrison in Wellington.
The directors at the time were Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter David and Joan Withers.
Mr Cooper's concern is that UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding isn't directly involved, rather an unnamed associate is funding the action with an undisclosed level of insurance cover for costs, via Gavigan's wholly-controlled New Zealand entity, Joint Action Funding Ltd.
The directors want details of the funding arrangement, including the identity of the actual British entity as well as the level of insurance cover, Mr Cooper said.
Mr Houghton's Queen counsel Austin Forbes, said Harbour didn't disclose the terms of its commercial arrangements, but said the level of insurance was sufficient to cover costs. There were also tax issues for the UK entity directly funding the action.
Justice Harrison tried to convince the lawyers to come to an agreement over disclosing certain terms of the funding arrangements, saying this case didn't need any further unnecessary delays.
Mr Cooper also questioned the suitability of Mr Gavigan as an appropriate court-approved funder, saying he had breached court orders and made misleading statements that their acquittal in a 2010 action taken by the Registrar of Companies for alleged breaches of the Financial Reporting Act was based on a technical argument.
"If a responsible funder is put in the position of funding with control in the same way (as in Australia), there's nothing for us to complain about," Mr Cooper told the court. "The complaints we have made are with particular entities."
The other parties to the class suit include broking firms Credit Suisse, First NZ Capital, and Forsyth Barr, who sold and promoted the offer.
Credit Suisse lawyer Adrian Olmey, said the procedural process was flawed, with one proceeding filed with all 3,000 participating shareholders included as joint plaintiffs rather than a representative claim. Because of that process, many of those joining shareholders would not be able to participate because it would have exceeded the statutory limitation of six years to file a claim.
When it finally gets to court, the Feltex action will be divided into two stages. The first will hear Mr Houghton's entire case, with the second using the first for binding rulings on common claims.
The hearing is set down for two days, and is proceeding.
Feltex collapsed in 2006, owing creditors between $30 million and $40 million, and destroying some $254 million in shareholder value.

























Comments and questions21
Somebody has to bring these arrogant directors to account
Offensive comments will be removed, as one has been.
What is the difference between these directors and the directors of Bridgecorp?
Feltex Directors bordered on incompetence
Bridgecorp directors were going for self enrichment
I think you'll find a lot of directors of NZ companies have multiple directorships and those on the boards of large companies collect six figure incomes from each company that employs them. It's a nice little earner. Do a google search of the names of the Feltex gang and you'll see what boards they're on or have been on. It's a cosy little club at the top in NZ.
Feltex bonds were promoted to me as a roock solid safe investment by Forsyth Barr. On reading the prospectus I was horrified that the IPO for those bonds was done on a mere sliver of shareholders equity and also noted that Feltex's profits had made a truly remarkable recovery from the year before despite the ongoing effects of the GFC. I tell you, it really raised eyebrows the way Forbar promoted this thing.
FB had a vested interest to paint a rosy picture of Feltex; in the same way the rating agencies waxed lyrical over Bears Stearns, Lehman Bros, Merryl Lynch etc. The relationships are very incestuous, so the in-bred progneny are born a bit wonky.
The trustees of our family trust had a large sum invested in FTX. They lost the lot for us. When a class action was first attempted a few years ago, the legal advice they took was not to join the action. Now we have this new class action, with a higher probability of success. Yet our trustees still refuse to join. It may be the only opportunity they have to recover their losses.
Can anyone suggest good reasons why they would not want to join an action like this? They haven't explained their reasons to the trust beneficiaries and naturally don't like us raising the subject.
Incidentally they also brought our business to insolvency and indebtedness and are avoiding questions.
call me 021 075 3704
If a trustee makes mistakes or poor decisions that erode the beneficiary's confidence, the beneficiary has the right to dismiss the trustee. Trust terms often lay out grounds for dismissal, and even if they don't you can dismiss your trustee if he violates certain requirements of the position.
Read more: Can a Beneficiary Remove a Trustee? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_12009609_can-beneficiary-remove-trustee.html#ixzz23b9n0XPE
It wasn't just Forsyth Barr but First NZ Capital as well who jointly promoted the IPO.
wait , there's more
http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/feltex-shareholders-counsel-seeks-disclosure-041901939.html
Most directorships are jobs for the boys. Nothing about governance or business competance. The bleek dark history and performance of most big companies will tell you that.
While some of the ex directors of Feltex will be incompetent, they'll be some who were connected to the previous owners and the conmen who sold it off to the jo public.
Lets hope that hell freezes over on this shonky lot, and that jo public get justice and repayment. Only this will give confidence for jo public to invest in the sharemarket going forward.
Thanks Tony and Eric, keep up the good fight.
Seems Cooper and Olmey are just clutching at straws, bring in red heerings even, am I right on this ?
Is it just more delaying tactics ?
All the very best...we are with you to the end as well.....lets hope its a good result for the little guys .
Vile comments about judges are not permitted and are removed. Any more of this and all comments will be disabled.
What are we allowed to write about judges and their decisions? A genuine question.
Jock, why do you think our judges are so very special human-beings? When they are patently not. They are not so revered, requiring worship at the foot of their altar. They aren't even all that bright. They just think they are.
Don't fool yourself into thinking they occupy a higher terrain than us, mere mortals; when a good number of them can be found at the bottom of the garden, frolicking away with the fairies. Ergo, Feltex judge.
It's like using the term the "Right Honorable' to the likes of Doug Graham and Winston Peters.
Come on you commentators you've read Jock's warnings twice now. Let's have some constructive comment otherwise we all lose the privilege of this open forum for the sake of a few axegrinders who think this is all a game.
The Forsyth Bar analyst, really drove the IPO deal, hard, on to the public. In fact, he floored it -- in a manner that can be described as " with reckless disregard as to consequences".
If only we had people of integrity in positions of power in those days... if only the FMA had been up and running .......