MRP share offer suspended til tomorrow

Written By: - Date published: 5:19 pm, April 22nd, 2013 - 36 comments
Categories: activism, assets, capitalism, energy, privatisation, same old national, sustainability - Tags:

The government announced about an hour ago, that it has suspended the share offer for Mighty River Power until tomorrow, while it devises a supplementary disclosure in the light of the Labour-Green NZ Power policy.

Monday, 22 April 2013, 4:05 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
Minister of Finance  Hon Bill English

Hon Tony Ryall Minister for State Owned Enterprises

22 April 2013 Media Statement

Government files supplementary disclosure on Mighty River Power

The Government and Mighty River Power are filing a supplementary disclosure to the Mighty River Power offer document, say Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall.

The document is being lodged with the Registrar of Financial Service Providers this afternoon.

“The existing MRP offer document already outlined the principal risks associated with an investment in MRP shares,” Mr English says. …

As a consequence of the rules governing supplementary disclosure, the share offer website has been temporarily suspended until tomorrow morning when it will re-open with the new disclosure added, but with all other details of the offer remaining the same, including the closing time of 5pm on Friday 3 May.

“The rules also require that New Zealanders who have already applied for shares may withdraw their applications if they choose. Withdrawals will be accepted for five working days.

The government looks to be on the back foot now, in so many ways.  Now is the time to show your displeasure of the asset sales plans, and to say loudly

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES!

Update: Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove responds to Key’s criticism of NZ Power as being a “step backwards”:

While Key tried to avoid commenting on whether the policy proposals would affect Mighty River’s value, he warned the policy would have wider implications for investment in New Zealand.

”People will think twice about investing in a country where the Government can turn around and change the rules on you overnight.”

Labour SOE spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the party had been responsible because it had written to the Government and Mighty River’s directors advising them to consider a supplementary disclosure.

“Investors need time to consider the changes we are proposing. National would be well advised to stop repeating its wild and silly accusations of socialism and communism and let cool heads prevail. The ridiculous allegation of economic sabotage has been demolished,” Cosgrove said.

Yes,.  Well said by Cosgrove.  And it needs to be repeated again and again that the red scare-mongering of the Nats is wild, and panicky.

36 comments on “MRP share offer suspended til tomorrow ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Peter 1
    22 April 2013 at 5:25 pm

    This is what successful spiking looks like, well done Labour, well done Greens.

  2. mickysavage 2
    22 April 2013 at 5:31 pm

    They say they had no alternative but did they? Are they getting cold feet? I wonder how the pick up has been to date?

  3. Zorr 3
    22 April 2013 at 5:39 pm

    The government of today can make one rule…

    And the government of tomorrow can make another…

    That’s how democracy works and should have been considered part of the risk of investing in critical NZ infrastructure. These investors don’t deserve their money back – they made a poor decision and have lost out. Boo-freaking-hoo…

    They are more than willing to jump on board the gravy train but the moment it looks like it’s anything but free money, they want off.

  4. Coronial Typer 4
    22 April 2013 at 6:06 pm

    This pause is responsible government.

    But well played Labour-Greens, well played.

    • dumrse 4.1
      22 April 2013 at 9:08 pm

      Economic sabotage from the communist left. NZ Milk, NZ Supermarket, NZ Fuel……what’s next on your list. Silly me, you need to wait until National plays the next policy card don’t you.

      • Peter 4.1.1
        22 April 2013 at 10:52 pm

        Victory coffee, Victory cigarattes, Victory gin, a compulsory 10 minutes of hate each morning, and a nice warm memory hole to conveniently drop things into. And it all starts with regulating an electricity supply, didn’t you know?

      • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.2
        23 April 2013 at 7:25 am

        NZ Milk? You mean Fonterra? 😛

        We already have “NZ medication”, too, btw. It’s called Pharmac, and I don’t see National and its buddies playing Find The Stalin with that government agency.

        We also have health systems run along the same lines as NZ Power in the noted socialist republics of Australia, Canada, and the UK. (although in a devolved fashion) This is neither a radical new policy nor some sort of red scare, and pretending it is is HILARIOUSLY funny. 🙂

  5. ghostrider888 5
    22 April 2013 at 7:58 pm

    the intro to 3 News; “…scared off by Labour and The Greens”; appears the MSM shiny-bums may be threatened by the pendulum swing, even.

    Key : “…have come to expect the unpredictable from the ‘far left’ opposition.” (all smug and cheesy grin).

  6. Lionel 6
    22 April 2013 at 9:16 pm

    the slimeball now labels it centre right v far left which is scaremongering
    Key is as right wing as DonBrash

  7. Colonial Viper 7
    22 April 2013 at 9:41 pm

    Cosgrove could also have said: “the market’s rules certainly needed changing. Because too many New Zealanders are being left out in the cold.”

  8. Penny Bright 8
    22 April 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Ok! Just posted THIS on Kiwiblog….. 🙂

    Hi Kiwibloggers 🙂

    How can the Government now ‘get a good price’ for Mighty River Power?

    Seems that the Government are going to have to call off the share launch of Mighty River Power?

    The OIA reply from Minister of State-Owned Enterprises Tony Ryall, on this rather tricky question of the getting of a ‘good price’ for Mighty River Power, (and related matters) is available here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ung4048v4cgtul7/Slevel6.3-c13031716040.pdf

    ___________________________________________________________________

    Please be reminded that the following complaint to the FMA is still ‘live’?

    (This complaint was lodged well before the Labour/Green NZ Power announcement on Thursday 18 April 2013, and before the Mighty River Power share launch on Monday 15 April 2013.)
    ___________________________________________________________________

    12 April 2013

    ‘Open Letter’ / formal request to the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority (FMA) to conduct an investigation into the Mighty River Power prospectus.

    Sean Hughes

    Finance Markets Authority CEO

    Dear Sean,

    Please be reminded of your statutory duties arising from the Finance Markets Authority Act 2011:

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0005/latest/DLM3231068.html

    9 FMA’s functions

    (1)The FMA’s functions are as follows:

    (a) to promote the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors, and consumers in the financial markets, including (without limitation) by—

    (i) collecting and disseminating information or research about any matter
    relating to those markets:

    (ii) issuing warnings, reports, or guidelines, or making comments, about any
    matter relating to those markets, financial markets participants, or other
    persons engaged in conduct relating to those markets (including in relation
    to 1 or more particular persons):

    (iii) providing information about its functions, powers, and duties under this Act
    and other enactments (including promoting awareness by investors that all
    investments involve risks and that it is not the role of the FMA to remove
    those risks):

    (iv) providing, or facilitating the provision of, public information and education
    about any matter relating to those markets:

    (b) to perform and exercise the functions, powers, and duties conferred or
    imposed on it by or under the financial markets legislation and any other
    enactments:

    (c) to monitor compliance with, investigate conduct that constitutes or may constitute a contravention of, and enforce—

    (i) the Acts referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 1 (and the enactments made
    under those Acts); and
    (ii) the Acts referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 1 (and the enactments made
    under those Acts) to the extent that those Acts or other enactments apply,
    or otherwise relate, to financial markets participants:

    (d) to monitor, and conduct inquiries and investigations into any matter relating to, financial markets or the activities of financial
    markets participants or of other persons engaged in conduct relating to those markets:

    (e) to keep under review the law and practices relating to financial markets, financial markets participants, and other persons
    engaged in conduct relating to those markets:

    (f) to co-operate with—

    (i) any other law enforcement or regulatory agency (including under section
    30):
    (ii) overseas regulators (including under section 30 or 31).

    (2) Subsection (1)(b) and (c) do not limit the functions, powers, and duties conferred or imposed on any other person in respect of financial markets legislation.

    (3) The fact that some other person has functions, powers, and duties in respect of financial markets legislation does not limit or restrict the FMA’s functions, powers, and duties in respect of that legislation.

    (4) Except as expressly provided otherwise in this or any other Act, the FMA must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties, and exercising its statutory powers, under—

    (a)this Act; and
    (b)any other Act that expressly provides for the functions, powers, or duties of the FMA (other than the Crown Entities Act 2004).

    Compare: 1978 No 103 s 10

    ___________________________________________________________________

    Schedule 1

    Financial markets legislation
    s 4
    Part 1

    Auditor Regulation Act 2011
    Financial Advisers Act 2008
    Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008
    Parts 4 and 5 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the KiwiSaver Act 2006
    Sections 45U and 45V of the Public Finance Act 1989
    Securities Act 1978
    Securities Markets Act 1988
    Securities Transfer Act 1991
    Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Act 2011
    Superannuation Schemes Act 1989
    Unit Trusts Act 1960
    Schedule 1 Part 1: amended, on 1 July 2012, by section 82 of the Auditor Regulation Act 2011 (2011 No 21).
    Schedule 1 Part 1: amended, on 30 June 2012, by section 11 of the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012 (2012 No 45).
    Schedule 1 Part 1: amended, on 1 October 2011, by section 60(2) of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Act 2011 (2011 No 10).

    Part 2

    Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009
    Building Societies Act 1965
    Companies Act 1993
    Co-operative Companies Act 1996
    Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989
    Sections 220, 228, 229, 240, 242, and 256 to 260 of the Crimes Act 1961
    Financial Reporting Act 1993
    Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982
    Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908
    Limited Partnerships Act 2008
    Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989
    Trustee Companies Act 1967

    ___________________________________________________________________

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0234/latest/DLM140405.html

    8A Who is information insider

    (1) A person is an information insider of a public issuer if that person—

    (a) has material information relating to the public issuer that is not generally available to the market; and
    (b) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is material information; and
    (c) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is not generally available to the market.

    (2)A public issuer may be an information insider of itself.

    Section 8A: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0234/latest/DLM140407.html

    8B Meaning of inside information

    In this subpart, inside information means the information in respect of which a person is an information insider of the public issuer in question.

    Section 8B: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).

    8C Information insider must not trade

    An information insider of a public issuer must not trade securities of the public issuer.
    Section 8C: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).

    8D Information insider must not disclose inside information

    An information insider (A) of a public issuer must not directly or indirectly disclose inside information to another person (B) if A knows or ought reasonably to know or believes that B will, or is likely to,—

    (a)trade securities of the public issuer; or
    (b)if B is already a holder of those securities, continue to hold them; or
    (c)advise or encourage another person (C) to trade or hold them.

    Section 8D: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).

    8E Information insider must not advise or encourage trading

    An information insider (A) of a public issuer must not—

    (a) advise or encourage another person (B) to trade or hold securities of the public issuer:
    (b) advise or encourage B to advise or encourage another person (C) to trade or hold those securities.

    Section 8E: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).

    8F Criminal liability for insider conduct

    A person who contravenes any of sections 8C to 8E commits an offence (see section 43 for the maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment and a $300,000 fine for an individual or a $1,000,000 fine for a body corporate) if the person has actual knowledge—

    (a)that the information is material information; and
    (b)that the information is not generally available to the market; and
    (c)in the case of a contravention of section 8D, of any of the matters set out in section 8D(a) to (c).

    Section 8F: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).
    ___________________________________________________________________

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8465532/Call-to-ban-ministers-from-share-float

    Three-quarters of Sunday Star-Times readers believe we should follow Australia and prohibit cabinet ministers from buying shares in state-owned companies they decide to sell.

    The pre-registration for the Mighty River Power share float closed on Friday with more than 440,000 signed up, but the sale of state assets remains divisive.

    We asked our readers if they wanted a similar rule to Australia’s “Standards of Ministerial Ethics” that require ministers “to divest themselves of all shareholdings other than through investment vehicles such as broadly diversified superannuation funds or publicly listed managed or trust arrangements”.

    It’s a rule that would prohibit buying into a state-owned asset float while in power and 75 per cent of the 788 people polled were in favour of it.

    Cabinet ministers have agreed to a voluntary “moratorium” preventing the purchase of shares by all ministers, and some of their staff, until 90 days after the initial sale.

    Finance Minister Bill English’s office said: “Cabinet also agreed that ministers and the staff in those offices . . . should use their best endeavours to ensure that their partners and dependent children adhere to the same moratorium.”

    But our readers say that is not long enough and want a more permanent solution.

    As one pro-asset sales reader said, a ban on share purchases would “prove they don’t have a vested interest or conflict of interest”.

    Another said: “It would help to keep our politicians openly accountable to public scrutiny. As corruption and lobbying increases in countries around the world this is just another small way we can try and stay relatively ‘clean’ for longer and assists in enhancing our international reputation as an honest country to deal with.”

    But a conflict of interest in an asset sale would, many felt, last longer than 90 days, and dozens cited fears of insider trading. One reader said: “They would probably have ‘insider knowledge’ of how MRP or any other state-owned companies were trading, and if in a downward spiral, would be able to offload them without getting hurt.”

    Not everyone wants ministers forced to sell all their shares, something that might discourage successful people from standing for office.

    Some cited the example of John Key, whose wealth is managed through a “blind trust” over which he says he has no control.

    “Good practice would be for all ministers to put their financial affairs into a blind trust type arrangement,” one reader said.

    Some also felt the suggested rule would do nothing to stop ministers from taking up roles such as directorships on assets they sold even after leaving office.

    The MPs from NZ First, Labour, and the Greens have all pledged not to buy Mighty River Power shares to demonstrate their opposition to the sale.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=18afffb768&view=att&th=13ddc0c862efa428&attid=0.0&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P-I5Cd-lIWIP7LzmJSi9erv&sadet=1365196872571&sads=

    __________________________________________________________________

    RISKS and INFORMATION which have arguably not been fully disclosed in the Mighty River Power prospectus, thus potentially misleading investors :

    1) Over-supply of wholesale electricity now.

    2) Further over-supply of the wholesale electricity market if the Government partially-privatises State-Owned Enterprises Meridian and Genesis.

    3) The consumer boycott of Mercury Energy, Mighty River Power’s main retail electricity provider by the Switch Off Mercury Energy community group. http://www.switchoffmercuryenergy.org.nz

    4) Failure to attempt to quantify the cost to Mighty River Power, if Rio Tinto does not reach a deal with Meridian Energy.

    5) Cabinet Ministers responsible for setting a ‘good’ price for Mighty River Power, John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce and Tony Ryall are not prohibited by law from purchasing shares in Mighty River Power, so are potentially ‘information insiders’ as per
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0234/latest/DLM140405.html

    8A Who is information insider

    (1) A person is an information insider of a public issuer if that person—

    (a) has material information relating to the public issuer that is not generally available to the market; and

    (b) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is material information; and

    (c) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is not generally available to the market.

    (2) A public issuer may be an information insider of itself.
    Section 8A: inserted, on 29 February 2008, by section 5 of the Securities Markets Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 47).

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ung4048v4cgtul7/Slevel6.3-c13031716040.pdf

    This information has not been disclosed to investors.

    7) Mighty River Power is also arguably misleading investors , because it advertises investors to ‘share’ in a company that they arguably already own, as currently a ‘State-Owned Enterprise’.

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    A Spokesperson for the Switch Off Mercury Energy Group

    …………………

  9. McFlock 9
    22 April 2013 at 11:57 pm

    Holy shit – just saw the report on nightline.
    Shearer was actually better than gareth hughes.
    And competent.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      23 April 2013 at 12:12 am

      Shearer was actually better than gareth hughes.

      Gareth Hughes hasn’t been an MP for as long as Shearer has. And he’s only 31, he’s got time to learn.

      • McFlock 9.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 12:26 am

        True. Shearer entered parliament a whole 8 months before hughes.

        Lol. It really showed tonight.

        If you want to take your hate-blinkers off, I was thinking that it might show more about a change in editorial policy more than anything else. Attack labour by attacking their friends, sort of thing.

        Assuming it wasn’t simply just that shearer had a good day at the office and hughes had a bad ‘un.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 12:40 am

          Yeah, 8 months is roughly 20% more Parliamentary experience. You do know that Shearer has as much professional career experience as Hughes has been alive right?

          Hughes had a bad one alright, asking for approved lines from a Green Party PR spinner, on camera.

          • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 12:56 am

            Oh fuck off. 8 months is 8 months. Damned near equivalent after three and a bit years. Three years in the same job.

            They are both mps. Both in the media light. Both given the same time for a sound bite. Hughes was not 20% worse, he fluffed it. If that were shearer you’d be baying for blood. But because it’s hughes you’re bending over backwards to make excuses.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 1:08 am

              Hughes did fluff it. But since he’s a young inexperienced MP, just 31, he’s got plenty of time to realise his substantial future potential.

              • McFlock …
                23 April 2013 at 1:21 am

                Jesus, the lengths you go to in order to avoid saying shearer did a good job tonight.

                31 is practically a child /sarc

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 April 2013 at 1:25 am

                  Any other mid ranked or backbench 30’ish MPs you want to compare Shearer to?

                  • McFlock …
                    23 April 2013 at 1:33 am

                    Lol

                    I’ll do one better – how’s key been going lately?

                    Does it really hurt that much to say that shearer got in a good sound-bite?

                    • Alanz …
                      23 April 2013 at 6:19 am

                      Shearer is the leader of what is supposed to be the largest and longest established opposition party, and has to demonstrate he is ready to lead a coalition of parties to be the alternative government?

                      More than luck is required. Or tumbling polls for the current government.

  10. mac1 10
    23 April 2013 at 12:33 am

    Shearer entered Parliament in June 2009.
    Hughes entered Parliament in February 2010, after being a Green Party staffer for five years.

    CV, I agree with McFlock who had written what I was in the process of writing above.

    My extra point is- what gives with the agist point that a 31 year old with 8 years in his political career ‘has got time to learn’. Do you need to put Hughes down to score an own goal against Shearer?

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      23 April 2013 at 12:38 am

      Nice broadening of the term “political career” to include Hughes answering phones, filing forms and looking up publications in Parliament. Did you include Shearer’s two decades working in UN politics and associated analysis roles?

      My extra point is- what gives with the agist point that a 31 year old with 8 years in his political career ‘has got time to learn’.

      Gareth Hughes has got several more Parliamentary terms ahead of him to learn his craft in the House, if he wants them. David Shearer has got one half of a term left to do the same.

      I trust my point is crystal.

      • McFlock 10.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 12:49 am

        Lol

        So your point is that shearer has work and life experience relevant to his parliamentary career, hughes doesn’t, and tonight it showed in their relevant performances.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 1:05 am

          I’m saying that its an absolute given that Shearer does better than Hughes in the media.

          And, it would be fitting to say, compare Shearer on camera performing better than Winston. Performing better than Key or English. Being sharper and more polished in presentation than Norman, Turei, or Harawira.

          Or if you like, you can compare Shearer to the talented 31 year old who is No.7 on the Greens list.

          • McFlock 10.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 1:18 am

            Lol keep spinning.

            last month he was a 1st term backbench mp” making beginner mistakes. Now he has oodles of previous experience that demands he have a better day than another first term mp who has been made a spokesman.

            Still, at least he’s improving, eh?

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 1:30 am

              No disagreement there, mate.

              • McFlock …
                23 April 2013 at 1:36 am

                that’s obviously the extent of your magnanimity.
                I’m off to bed.

              • AmaKiwi …
                23 April 2013 at 1:44 am

                Young, contemporary thinking, but inexperienced versus experienced but stuck in the past.

                My view of the difference between The Green’s MPs and the ABC gang who are manipulating the Labour Party.

                No, I don’t want to debate it. I’m going to bed.

  11. newsense 11
    23 April 2013 at 3:00 pm

    ”People will think twice about investing in a country where the Government can turn around and change the rules on you overnight.”

    oh, so only labour laws get changed under urgency? perhaps that’s why so many good workers are fucking off to other countries?