Member log in

Jean Hubbard fights to keep $60m of assets

Jean Hubbard is opposing a transfer of assets worth $60 million to the statutory managers of Aorangi Securities.

Grant Thornton is seeking a High Court order for the transfer of assets, after they were pledged to the company by the late Allan Hubbard and his wife in early 2009 or early 2010.

Hubbard investment vehicles Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds were put into statutory management in June 2010.

In a statement early last night, Grant Thornton says they are "dismayed" at Mrs Hubbard's decision but remain committed to returning as many funds to investors as possible.

“This is a major about turn by Mrs Hubbard, and a considerable setback for investors. It is contrary to public statements previously made by the Hubbards that these assets are assets of Aorangi and that their personal interests in Aorangi would rank behind the interests of investors,” the statement says.

“If our claim is unsuccessful, we may need to look for other avenues of recovery to ensure a suitable return to investors.”

So far, investors have received 12 cents in the dollar, or around $11.5 million, of their capital back. Grant Thornton warns Mrs Hubbard's decision to fight their legal action will further delay repayments to investors.

“After transferring these assets to Aorangi, Mr Hubbard subsequently attempted to transfer the same assets to several trusts and put loan arrangements in place between those trusts and Aorangi.

"We deliberately unwound those subsequent transactions because on our analysis they were ineffective,” Grant Thornton says.

Comments and questions
44

Remember that supermarket visit when her card bounced? Expensive mistake.

Ruth Madoff is that you again?

No surprises here then.

The Hubbard's eh? Their word is their bond.

NOT.

Hear hear. I wonder where all those people who marched in support of the Hubbards are now? Not so vocal in support of cannonising Saint Alan now I suspect.

Old mother Hubbard,
Went to the cupboard,
For to get the investors a bone.
But when she got there,
The cupboard was bare,
So she made Aorangi her own..........

You guys have really got all the facts... perhaps I can translate: "baa baa baa baaaaa"

Old mother Hubbard,
Went to the cupboard,
For to get the investors a bone.
But when she got there,
She didn't want to share,
So she told them to eff off, home...

when ol Grant Thornton
starts a taunting.
you realise it was always a game
at the end of the day
they took Hubbards stuff
and never bothered
to give him a say

Wasn't it Allan hubbard who made sure that the assets were transferred into Aorangi and the Statutory Managers who gave it back - desoite Allan Hubbard saying he didn't want the money.

The way the statutory managers then treated the Hubbards it is no wonder Mrs Hubbard has taken her position.

Maybe the Statutory Managers should be sued for gross negligence by the investors

AAAhhh Good old Doctor, still on the payroll I see, still seeking to defend the indefensible.

I dont know who is more nauseating, the Hubbards or their creatures.

any comparisons to Madoff are ludicrous when the SM says $60m will see investors get 100c.

Wasn't it The Companies Office that furnished a report stated AH had transferred funds out of Aorangi and that AH was the beneficiary of those transfers. This information was the basis of the fraud matter....??

Well Grant Thornton has confirmed that statement was also untrue, ,the funds were AH's personal capital and he was transferring that capital into Aorangi. The opposite of what the regulator's had described!

It is those transactions that the SMgrs reversed. Yet they were in place to act in the best interest of the investors ?? Seems to me the Regulators and the Statutory Managers have a little to answer for here!!

Any fund that has a shot at 100c in the dollar _after_ SM was probably better than blue chip.

Love the comparison. Blue Chip!
Just about anything has to be better than Blue Chip.

Youre the guy who said he invested in too many dairy farms right?

Nope. I ensure I don't over expose myself to any one asset or asset class.

The Statutory Managers rejected all sorts of offers from the Hubbards for those funds, because they wanted to control the Hubbards and ASL. It's no surprise that Mrs Hubbard has finally put her foot down. The stat managers can't have their cake and eat it too.

Dont be too sure... theyve had a pretty good feed.

aint that the truth. The SMers have been trying to lick the icing of our cake. Let the fight begin!!!

If someone offers you $60m, no strings attached, you take it as quickly as possible or at least get it in writing.

I have absolutely no facts at all but if it wasn't negligence, it was at least a big F up.

The statutory managers had conflicts of interest from the start.

Actions were the opposite of protecting investments by liquidating valuable assets.

It's just as well Thornton made sure she'd have no money to sue them with. (Lucky Mrs Dotcom wasn't as weak and vulnerable.)

Anon #9 should be careful talking like that. Only teenagers or those on the payroll insult a person based on their opinion. Such conduct towards the doctor says more about yourself.

It's always interesting coming here to toxic spin HQ at nbr... a good reminder of the hollow filth that is NZ business conduct. It's like a school boy hostel.

If she decides to fight it then that's her choice. So what if a company goes bad, that's the risk you take. All people do is whinge and whine. I seriously hope she wins. I'd do exactly the same. Stuff the investors.

Normally I would agree but the Hubbard's made a firm committment.

Unfortunately it seems as if the SM are left looking like the school playground fool whining "But you promised"

I doubt it will be Jean talking a stand to get the 60m back. More likely the family upset at Dad giving away the silverware. The whole thing is a sad sad state of affairs. Or is it there isn't 60m and we are all talking about monopoly assets.....

So Mr and Mrs Hubbard own a truck-load of assets jointly, and Mr Hubbard's the one who's been up to mischeif that is difficult to pin on Mrs Hubbard. The Hubbards make unenforceable promises to contribute assets to Aorangi and subordinate them to the interests of Aorangi investors which would, if executed, deprive Mr Hubbard's personal creditors of those funds and could be unwound as unfair preferences. But it's good PR and deflects some of the punishment his reputation had taken. The Stat Managers figure out that they can't keep the assets even if they want to, but why not have a go and see if a judge will let them have them.

But then Mr Hubbard dies so Mrs Hubbard now has a golden opportunity, so her lawyers tell her. The jointly held assets pass to Mrs Hubbard by helself, while Mr Hubbard's estate is left to carry the can on any mischeif Mr Hubbard is liable for that probably can't be pinned on Mrs Hubbard. Taking the assets back to Mr and Mrs Hubbard means they go to Mrs Hubbard, leaving the potential future creditors of Mr Hubbard and his estate without any resources to pay for Mr Hubbard's liability for losses caused by his mischeif. Result is Mrs Hubbard ends up with the assets and not the liabilities.

You have pretty much nailed it. So not only has Mr Hubbard cost the nation hundreds of millions in the tax funded bailout of his empire of sin (an awful lot of extra hospital beds and extra operations could have been done with that wasted money) we now find that his promises are worthless. The Aorangi investors are waking up to the realisation that the saint they claimed to believe in was really a..............

Clearly Grant Thornton has the investors best interests at heart. So he will donate his fees to the cause and stop pillaging the honey pot ...? Or perhaps he should have learned to say "please"?

Hardly Grant Thornton's fault.

Grant Thornton had the opportunity to have a third party do a commercial deal in which Allan Hubbard guaranteed the $60 million of assets would have been correctly gifted to Aorangi and or HMF. Given that $250 million was put into South Canterbury by Allan Hubbard to try and save it, his track record suggested he would do it. Grant Thornton called the Hubbards bluff and refused a commercial solution when they clearly didn't have the leverage to do so. They were arrogant. Now they are trying to swing public opinion against the Hubbards for playing their cards exactly as they should have expected.

A commercial deal wouldn't have allowed Grant Thornton to keep charging their lofty management fees at the investors expense.

Grant Thornton is a Firm, not a Person. The Statutory Managers work for the firm.

This makes Treaty settlements pale into insignificence, they are a mere drop in a bucket compared to the Government "Bail out" so far and nothing more insight!!

This is just a feeding frenzy for the Lawyers
Chapman Tripp must be loving it!!

Whichever way you look at it the taxpayer is out to the tune of $1b+
The politicans and treasury who agreed to finance companies going in on the gurantee should be jailed and fined for gross negliengence

Well the Hubbards have finally shown their true colours when it comes to the crunch. Their previous promises were just desperate attempts to keep Alan out of jail, but now he's dead they reneg on those promises and try to keep the loot for themselves.

Actions speak louder than words, it seems.

As so many thought. The "do gooder" Hubbards were nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing and like all fraudsters they will fight till the end to keep their ill gotten gains. Shame on them

What a pity that apparently no-one has the courage to put his/her name on some of the scurillous allegations. If it is the truth-show your integrity. If you just enjoy wallowing in other peoples' sisasters why don't you go out and chop firewood for the elderly and burn off your hatred that way. I do not have to give my well known name because I am not making wild claims or indulging in strong allegations. Show some spine.

I spent an hour on the phone with Jean Hubbard last night.

She has every intention of honouring her deceased husband's commitment to repay investors.

The fact is though, that Grant Thornton are conflicted in this matter, and have been since day one.

It would seem that many of the rather vicious critics in this column would be more than happy for government to employ a private sector insolvency firm to walk into their business, inspect less than 1% of their files, and then go away and write a 19 page report based on a 2 hour cursory inspection of that small handful of files, accusing them of fraud and reckless management, and recommending that the insolvency practitioners be (self) appointed to seize and sell all of their assets.

Obviously those same critics would fall over themselves to then pay an average of $51,000per week in fees to those insolvency practitioners for the next two years, and obviously those critics would be thrilled to have their lives and reputations destroyed in the process - while being denied access to a court room to even challenge the situation - due to it being "an ongoing investigation" (while their lives are being destroyed by the headlines anyway, and all of their assets are in the process of being sold).

The simple fact is, a citizen of New Zealand has had his assets siezed and sold by the Crown on the basis of accusations alone, while being denied access to a court room.

Anyone who gleefully states that this is a good thing in Allan Hubbard's case, must accept that their logic then applies to themselves and all other New Zealanders, such is the profound stupidity and short-sightedness of their thinking......or is it a case of "it's ok to stick it to Allan Hubbard but different rules have to apply in every other case?"

In addition to that, Thornton's deliberate strategy of using accounting methods that were highly questionable at best, misleading investors and the media (strangely - always for their own benefit) have hardly instilled Jean Hubbard with confidence in them.

Furthermore, their systematic campaign to destroy her husband's reputation, and therefore the value of many of his assets, by deliberate manipulation of the media, is another factor that ensured they would be challenged.

If I am wrong, then perhaps someone can provide me with sound logical reasons why it was appropriate to consistently release their reports to the media before even showing them to Allan Hubbard, his lawyers, or his investors. Perhaps one of the bright-spark critics here can come up with a doozy of an explanation to demonstrate just how beneficial this was for the value of the assets, or the interests of the investors.

Jean Hubard fails to see how consistently releasing incorrect reports to the press, creating unwanted and unnecessary speculation and headlines, not to mention destruction of the value of the assets, was ever in the interests of investors - who Grant Thornton were supposedly there to "protect".

Perhaps the critics can explain how $51,000 per week in fees since June 2010 has protected or served the interests of the investors as well?

While they are at it, perhaps the critics would care to comment on the email from Simon Power to Treasury, dated and timed less than 40 minutes before he announced the statutory management and fraud investigation in question on 20th June 2010, which says: "I need someone to explain what statutory management means so I know what I am talking about".......especially in light of the literally hundreds of letters he sent to Hubbard investors saying he "gave the matter careful consideration" and "didn't make these decisions lightly".

The fact is that the statutory management of Allan and Jean Hubbard was materially flawed and unlawful, and the asset sales program from the resulting collapse of South Canterbury Finance is an absolute scandal - and no amount of hatred or contempt toward Allan Hubbard can condemn him for it - because it is ENTIRELY the fault of the politicians and the regulators are behind it.

You can harp on as much as you like about what an old crook Allan Hubbard was, but if you do, then you also need to explain how the government sold the good loan book from SCF for $300 million when THEY said it was worth $900 million to start with, or why assets like Braebrook were sold for less than $2 million when they were conservatively valued at $6.5 million......while Allan Hubbard had nothing to do with it.

Perhaps if we hang out the window, with a wire coat hanger, and get JUST the right signal from outer space, we might just about be able to get enough information to piece together to create a pitcure that looks like it's Allan Hubbard's fault - because that's the desperation with which his critics appear to want to hang him. The sheer lack of logic in their views, added to the sheer vitriol contained in their arguments, renders their words irrelevant.

Bottom line is - Thorntons deliberately structured the situation/case to make it look like Jean Hubbard is challenging the investors for the money, when in reality she is challenging the statutory managers.

Only an idiot would leave them in charge of their money.

Oh Christ, yet another Hubbard apologist crawls out of the woodwork. Suck long at the Hubbard teat did you? They may be taked for mugs down in Timaru, but the rest of us are livid at the billion dollars this guy cost ordinary taxpayers.

You're talking bollocks!!

Paul you disappeared for a while when you thought old mother hubbards goose was truely cooked. Now she might get a crack at 60 mill, yourr back defending her. Its obvious to me you sniff a bit of that cash pile for yourself. Your comment about the guy who had the stroke shows what a nasty person you really are, hardly hubbard like. This is all about the money for you isnt it mr travelling salesman?

Hi Paul - please email me on: dwilliams@nbr.co.nz

Oh.....what a considered, well thought through, reasoned, logical response. Thank your for providing us with all of the proof in the known universe that Allan's critics are thoughtless, stupid, ignorant, unreasonable morons with hidden agendas, who all answer to the name "anon", and who invariably resort to vicious personal attacks when their argument runs out of corners to hide in. The last one who started on me had a massive stroke - a fact which I am still dining out on. Feel free to continue....loser.....

So far I have spent in excess of $10,000 of my own money defending their rights and I have made it clear to everyone involved I am not remotely interested in their money. What I am interested in is stopping abuse of power and corruption dead in it's tracks, and only a bullet will stop me from doing that, one way or another.

My comments about the stroke victim were perfectly fair and reasonable given the abuse he directed and me for well over a year. You people are unbelievable. You spit hatred and venom left, right and centre, you hurl abuse, you blame, you belittle, you attack, you divide, you inflict, you destroy......and yet no-one else is allowed to have a dig back in their own defence, and if they do, you twist that with your psychotic logic, and turn that into some form of hatred as well.

I have no interest whatsoever in money in relation to this issue.

I note that you issue your accusations from behind the safety of anonymity.

I would be more than happy to defend my innocence of the allegations you have directed at me in a court room if you like, all I need you to do is have the courage to put your name to your allegations, so that I can make that happen.

Again - with respect to the stroke victim - even my own mother described it as karma. The problem with you lot, "Anonymous", is that none of you ever seem to be able or willing to catch what you throw - the behaviour of idiots and school boy bullies.

Trying to make me feel like less of a person than Allan Hubbard because I happen to resort to language or tactics that he would not have used is such a pathetic, desperate, breathless tactic that all I can say is you are pathetic.

Even worse, saying that to me from behind the safety of anonymity reveals what a pathetic example of a human being you are.

Paul i did not make any allegations or state anything as fact. Read my language, its an opinion, which is very different.