Wednesday, 29 November 2006

Margot McKay is to appear before the Supreme Court on 2 February. I like the headline in the 'Business' section of The Sydney Morning Herald best: "Pokies flack charged". But the story by Kate McClymont on page 3 of the front section is also worth reading:

According to the Crown statement handed to the magistrate, Geoff Bradd, at the Downing Centre Local Court yesterday, McKay used her son, Nicholas, her mother, Cecilia, and a family friend, Jennifer Holt, to buy almost $150,000 of Aristocrat shares in August and October 2004, before announcements to the stockmarket that McKay herself had written.

This seems to be just as bad as what Steve Vizard did, but because she's just a PR operative, it gets stuck in the corner of page 3, instead of up there in lights on the front page. Both cases are appalling. "Oh, the irony," moans reporter Michael Evans in the 'Business' section,

McKay was hired to help restore the company's image after allegations of fraud at executive level.

It seems like corruption at the gaming-machine manufacturer, Aristocrat, is endemic. It'll be interesting to see if she gets banned from being employed in her profession for 10 years, as Vizard did.


Anonymous said...

Regarding Margot McKay; What happened on the 2nd February?

Dean said...

According to coverage published on the Web site of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Margot McKay will be sentenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 16 March 2007.

john martin said...

conviction is travesty; share prices can go down after announcing earnings increase; share price depends on FUTURE earnings and net worth; eg sale of assets may increase current earnings; BUT share price could drop dramatically; look at the share price now.....