Well the Hanover vote is in. Welcome as Allied Farmers shareholders. I wonder how many of the 2 billion new shares will rush for the exit on the first day? Well done Mark, Eric and your "independent" advisors for once again showing your investors what was in your (sorry thier)best interest. Actually its a bit of a pain you have to produce all these expensive reports and hold meetings for these people as really we all know all you have to do is to tell them there is still a hope they will get their money back.

Perhaps we could meet at Soal bar to toast your good fortune. I'll have a Steinlarger. Perhaps I could pay for it with 35 Allied shares ? Sorry I forgot thats todays price at 20c. Perhaps I'd better bring along 700 shares as I guess they wont be worth more than 1c each.

Don't see the point of this at all. This kind of blatant breach of privacy (even though I'm sure this info can be found of the companies office website) is bordering on 'harassment' without any evidence. Trials are for courts and judges Bruce, not you.

This is my second comment this evening about this terrible deal between Allied Farmers and Hanover. Don't you wish (all those who were at that Hanover meeting where we were promised the earth to set up a moratorium) that we had listened to the voice of reason, Bruce Sheppard, who urged us to insist on RECEIVERSHIP but was howled down. The worst possible outcome, the last ditch,the unmentionable word but do you, like me wished we had listened. Ah yes! I was seduced by the mention of all those millions of dollars invested into the trust fund and couldn't see the wood for the trees realise now we would have had a better return in the end. As from today we have thousands of useless bits of paper and have to wait until the world ends to realise any money. I feel enraged that this crowd has really done a 'job' on all those frightened,desperate and uninformed older people who were frightened by the thought of receivership and I voted for this to hopefully happen. I feel like what was left of my investment has been stolen from under my nose and want to be the invester from HELL.

Good on you Bruce for advising of the Hotchin/Watson cohorts. If I ever manage to get some money together in the future to invest Ha Ha, will look out for these people. I have quite a list going now of all the no-hopers in the business world. I feel quite depressed to think that New Zealand is never going to get back on it's feet with the obvious lack of expertise of business people around.

Bruce, even though we all know that this information is publicly available on the Companies Office website, I'd take down the home addresses, I don't think it's a good look. Nothing wrong with identifying those with whom he does business but I think the personal details does no-one any favours and will take away from the important message here. Watson, Hotchin and the others involved in Hanover Finance have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and should be avoided, and potentially shunned, from the NZ business community.

I also believe it's a good decision to exclude professional advsors from this list. Very very few firms are in a position to say no to work and at the same time attempt to maintain a competitive practice in New Zealand. This may be an anathema to some but professional ethics do require lawyers to work for their clients without undertaking value judgements about their business. No law firm will ever advise their client to break the law or its spirit, and ultimately the company will drive the direction of any action. Additionally, many firms have acted for Hanover over a number of years when they were a valid part of the mezzanine finance industry, they are simply not in a position to turn around now and say they will not act, and may in fact be in breach of their professional obligations.

Many people may not understand or like that position, but that is the reality. Disclosure, I am a banking lawyer and have acted for numerous finance companies in the past, although not Hanover.

Justice, you are misnamed, and you should never confuse the law with justice, there is a loose correlation at best.

If you want the world to be a better place, then we have to hold people accountable, collectively. What we can do is ensure that Watson and if necessary his men do not receive our money, ie we dont invest with them and we dont buy their goods.

If these people care about the society they live in they might at least try to talk Watson into turning up and throwing some cash in to cover the 30% already written off by Bond holders. They have made their call now and taken valuable Allied shares.So they have 70% back.

So Jusitce the point is we deserve to know who helps these guys do what they do so if they dont jump out and show some remorse they too can take the heat.

It is interesting how often people have a name that suites them, MADE OFF.... and now we have FLAY. There is no doubt that Watson has flayed his investors.

Bruce, for your information 28 Village Fields Rd Waiau Pa is not on Watson's former stud farm which is at Ti Hihi, they are about 9 km apart. Watson has sold his Te Hihi stud Westbury to Ingham the Australian chicken magnate. Watson still owns a 90 acre luxury lifestyle block including golf course just around the corner, which he rents out. Sorry I cannot find their website.

It saddens me to see the result of the vote, however I guess as the adage goes; fools and their money are easily parted.

I want to see a recount. They needed 75 percent and they get 75.45. Come on. Plus,I had an augument with my wife last night, can you believe it. She told me that she eats at the Soul bar all the time,as she likes their food, and wasn't to keen on not going there anymore. Well that started me off,now im getting the silent treatment. Not only do I expect her,to not eat there anymore,I expect her to tell all her friends not to as well. She won't be happy, but I usually get my way. As for the Warriors,I hope they never win another game.

"Go figure that, legal ethics, contradiction in terms."

So you'd be perfectly happy that if lawyers thought that their client was guilty it would be perfectly acceptable for some to subvert their defence and have them judged guilty in order to observe your concept of justice? If police were to do it it would be called fabricating evidence. As a lawyer to be I find this 'ethical' stance unacceptable and disgusting.