Questions about JBL

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33035, 30 September 1972, Page 2

Questions about JBL

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, Sept. 29. No responsible person could say at this stage whether the directors of JBL had been involved in any criminal practices, the Minister of Justice (Sir Roy Jack) said in Parliament today.

The receiver (Mr D. L. Hazard) had been fully involved in his attempt to

rescue the JBL group.. This was an extremely complex business. His primary objective was to maintain investors’ funds.

Sir Roy Jack said that because of this, Mr Hazard had had no time to consider in depth whether there had been any criminal practice. He was replying to a question from Mr R. O. Douglas (Lab., Manukau) asking if a statement by the former deputy receiver (Mr R. Dwyer), that the directors of JBL had been guilty of gross malpractice and should go to gaol, was correct. Mr J. L. Hunt (Lab., New Lynn) asked if Mr Dwyer’s statements were highly actionable or correct, to which Sir Roy Jack replied that some statements that had appeared in print had been acrimonious and sensational. The interests of investors would be better served by preserving their interests than by stirring up this sort of feeling. The position of JBL investors was the subject of five questions Mr Douglas asked Sir Roy Jack today. Asked if he would table the statements of affairs of several JBL companies, Sir Roy Jack said these were already on public file in the Companies Office.

He had no knowledge of funds from the staff provident fund being irregularly invested in JBL companies He had been told that employee contributors would definitely be refunded in full, Sir Roy Jack said. The Government would consider, in the light of the receiver’s report, if aspects of the activities of the group required further inquiry, the Minister said in reply to a question asking if a public inquiry should be held. The call for such an inquiry, made by a director of JBL, Mr Meiklejohn, had been made before the appointment of a Government receiver, Sir Roy Jack said.

Arguments about whether a trust receipt might not be a trust receipt were based on a misunderstanding of the law, he said. Mr Douglas had asked why people who had received a “JBL Consolidated, Ltd, Trust Account" receipt found themselves in the position of unsecured creditors. Sir Roy Jack said the issue of such a receipt did not imply that the person receiving it was a secured creditor.