Startling revelations in Hotchin affair
Startling revelations of bad lending practice, dangerously high debt ratios and unsecured related-company loans were revealed this week in the High Court trial of three Nathans Finance directors.
In a previously confidential and damning report for the Securities Commission, HFK consultant David Crichton – one of New Zealand’s leading insolvency and forensic accountancy specialists – told of a chain of transactions between Nathans and parent VTL which fell well outside good lending practice.
Nathans directors Donald Young, Roger Moses and Mervyn Doolan have denied 12 charges of distributing an advert containing untrue statements an six chares of signing a prospectus which include an untrue statement.
Director John Hotchin (brother of Hanover Finance’s Mark Hotchin) pleaded guilty in March to three Securities Act charges relating to making untrue and misleading statements in Nathans prospectus.
Full details of what Mr Crichton uncovered in his investigation and analysis of Nathans books appear exclusively in National Business Review’s print edition this week.
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
















Comments and questions7
So startling Jock that this article is a joke with no substance but repeating an earlier article you wrote.
maybe you should get off your rump and have a look at other good topics like Strategic Finance or Hanover or anything with substance and stop being a lazy barssstard
Its just an advert to go out and buy the print edition...maybe he is busy writing the article now???
nothing startling here - we all know that John and his band a merry men used nathans as piggy bank for their other dog businesses. how can these 3 plead not guilty???? FFS they all signed the documents - if they did not then Hotchin defrauded the company so how come he gets home detention?
I dont get this...so I just paid to read an article that told me nothing other than if I want the details go buy a hard copy.
Where is the startling revelation? Oh I get it thats the fact that I got cond into buying an online sub based on viewing an enticing headline.
NBR - why do you do this? Are you guys stupid? Or is ok in your mind to put up paid content that in reality is just an advertisement for the print edition. This is bottom of the barrel stuff!
Disappointing NBR! What a waste of my money!
So this is how we fund Barry's lifestyle of private jets, corporate boxes and chauffeur driven cars - paying online for headlines and content that you have to pay again for in the print edition.
Taking the piss don't you think?
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below