VALUE OF BANK SHARES DISPUTED

Chronicle (Levin), 10 September 1947, Page 6

VALUE OF BANK SHARES DISPUTED

press Association )

(Per

WELLINGTON, Sept. y. Claiming that payments niade to shareholders of the Bank of New Zealand when the Government acquired shares in ~ 1945, were arbitrary and mueh below the true value of the shares, a committee of eight shareholders' representatives today petitioned the House of Representatives asking for the appointment of an independent judicial tribunal to determine the true value of the shares and to award adequate compensation for the cohipulsoiy acquisition, of those shares by the State. The petition recalled that the committee was set up by a special general meeting of the proprietors of the Bank of New Zealand on November 29, 1944, its members, who w.ere all signa-iMpr.-es to the petition, being MeSsrs M. I ^ Barnett (solicitor, Wellington), B. Blackley (company direetor, Wellington), F" W. Dawson (formerly general manager of the Bank of New Zealand. now retired, of Wellington), T. N. Gibbs (public accountant, Christchurch), A. D. Park (chainnan of directors of the State Advances Oorporation, Wellington), Stronaeh Paterson (company direetor, Wellington), E. J Smitli (solicitor,. Dunedin), and R. M. Watson (retired magistrate, now company direetor, Wellington). Messrs Paterson and Dawson were proprietors* representatives on the board of directors of the bank at the time of the passing of the Bank of New Zealand Act, 1945. The petition recalled that by that Act the registered kolders of ordin.ary shares in the Wellington register of thc bank, were offered for every sliare either 45s cash or £2 (js 8d in tax-free non-transferable New Zealand Government stock, or £2 13s 4d in ordinary Nevt Zealand Government stock. The petitioners stated that at no time before the Act was passed was the committee in any way consulted by the Minister of Finance as to wliat would constitute a fair price for the shares nor did anv negotiations in that belialf take place between the Minister and committee. The sums fixed by the Act as sums to be paid to shareholders, constituted an arbitrary fixation of prices and were mueh below the true value of the shares, with the result that shareholders had been deprived of a substantial portion of the true value of their shares aud had acconlingly suffered a severc loss. The amounts to be paid should have been fixed at the time by an independent judicial tribunal but as this was not done, petitioners asked that the relevant provisions of the Act fixiug the prices paid for shares, shouldnow be repealed and such a tribunal set up to settle what compensation should be paid to the shareholders.