Attorney-General a crook?
Parker's resignation has been accepted by PM!
Acc... accoun.... accounta..... accountabil...... accountability???!! I can't quite comprehend it. Makes Benson-Pope's desperate clinging to power and refusal to tender his resignation all the worse - doesn't it?
Parker might still have an out - but in the meantime I suppose a stand-down is the best way to deflect any tarnish. But why not with Benson-Pope? The reason, I think can be summed up in one word: Cullen.
Investigate magazine's blog has the teaser. Once again, Mr Wishart's digging may come to nothing. It makes for a great headline, but the substance may fall short. It gives me no pleasure in saying this either - after Labour's election-time dodgy spending spree and the Police's refusal/incompetence to prosecute the matter it would be good to see justice being done to at least one of this gang.
Under section 196(2) of the Companies Act directors are required to file an annual return to the Companies Office each year, and appoint an auditor to the company’s affairs, unless the shareholders have passed a unanimous resolution not to seek an audit.
Such a resolution is required under section 122 to be in writing, signed by all shareholders and held in the company's minutes book.
The director is required to declare to the Companies Office whether a unanimous shareholders’ resolution has been passed, and if so on what date.
Russell Hyslop has told Investigate he and Parker had a falling out over what he alleges was the Labour MP’s refusal to pay him up to half a million dollars he was owed, back in early 1997. [...]
But Investigate’s search of the company records has found a series of documents signed by David Parker stating that each year the shareholders have passed such a resolution.
The relevant part of s.196 of the Companies Act 1993:
"(2)A company need not appoint an auditor in accordance with subsection (1) if, at or before the meeting, a unanimous resolution is passed by all the shareholders who would be entitled to vote on that resolution at a meeting of shareholders. Such a resolution ceases to have effect at the commencement of the next annual meeting."
"Would be entitled to vote" - would the shareholder (Mr Hyslop) be entitled to vote if he wasn't present at the meeting? What does the company's constitution say about that issue?
Even if the other directors did not follow the procedure, could a defence be that they acted in good faith believing that they had acted according to law?