ERIC Watson's past bites

Director?? and Shareholder of Hanover Mr Watson was fined in 2001 in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE

The documentation states “ERIC JOHN WATSON, Respondent.

“Watson decided to create a fund entitled "Fund for Certain Trading in McCollam Printers Limited." Watson established this fund to distribute Watson's and his associates' proceeds from their McCollam trading to the shareholders from whom they purchased their McCollam shares”.

Watson deposited NZ$680,704.99 into this fund. Further statements in Commissions document reads;

“Even though Watson is a New Zealand citizen and his purchases and sales of McCollam shares occurred in New Zealand, Watson engaged in conduct that had the effect of defrauding a U.S. issuer and its shareholders. The Commission will hold accountable all violators of the U.S. federal securities laws, including foreign entities and individuals, when their actions adversely impact U.S. issuers and shareholders”.

More problems are afoot for Hanover. Earlier this year the pressure was put on Hanover finance and its directors by court action related to interparty loans with proceedings currently in progress. Investors have been kept in the dark and unaware of the seriousness of this litigation.

On the face of information becoming available to the investors and the public, mostly through the media, it would appear that Hanover was running a very sophisticated plan not unlike the Ponzi scheme of the 1930’s . Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapse.

The NZ Securities Commissions sleepy approach to this situation and their failure to protect investors and other interested parties is very frustrating.

In a letter to an interested party the commission wrote “With regard to your suggestion of statutory management we note that there appears to be nothing to indicate that receivership is not a viable alternative, which means that statutory management is not appropriate or available.”

Coordinator of EUFA Suzanne Edmonds Says “Clearly the Commission are not doing their job properly to obtain all the information available, and under the Act they have a duty to appoint a Statutory Manager immediately”

:This website below is a must be read - by investors

http://www.aninconvenienttruth.biz/index.html