2640 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 85 27 JULY 2006

representations would be understood in the proper
context in relation to:

(a) the nature of the rights that were to be purchased
by Partnership A from Company B; and/or

(b) the right to claim depreciation in accordance with the
Income Tax Act 1994; and/or

(c) the true value of the rights that were being
transferred and/or the purchase price to be paid
by Partnership A; and/or

(d) the estimated future results for Partnership A for the
years ended 31 March 1998 to 31 March 2007.

(Code of Ethics 1995 – FP 1; and/or FP 2; and/or FP 5;
and/or FP 7; and/or EP 22; and/or EP 29; and/or EP 31.)

AND the member:

2.1 failed to disclose to the prospective investors that he
would directly or indirectly receive a financial benefit
from the said scheme or arrangement; and/or

(Code of Ethics 1995 – FP 1; and/or FP 5.)

2.2 made conflicting statements to the professional conduct
committee and the Inland Revenue Department as to
the basis for determining the purchase price and/or
valuation of the rights to be transferred.

(Code of Ethics 1995 – FP 1; and/or FP 5; and/or EP 29.)

Reasons

The member has admitted all the particulars 1.1 (a), (b), (c),
(d), 1.2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 2.1 with the exception of
particular 2.2 and pleaded guilty to charges (1) and (4) with
charges (2), (3) and (5) being withdrawn by the prosecution.

In relation to particular 2.2, although he submitted that
the conflicts could be reconciled, the tribunal found this
particular proved but not of great significance.

The tribunal acknowledges the environment in which the
member operated with an entrepreneurial firm, a charismatic
boss and a natural desire to please his employer and a
reliance on the ACTONZ precedence.

The tribunal also acknowledges that other parties were also
participants but are not before the tribunal but it is no
defence to ethical breaches that his employer was not bound
by such a code.

The Code of Ethics requires among other things fundamental
principles of integrity, objectivity, independence and freedom
of conflicts of interest.

The tribunal asked if he had a genuine belief as to the
business opportunity, the validity of the critical IP and
the tax treatment to follow.

Despite the submissions on his behalf, the tribunal doubted
that he did, but for a professional that belief must be
reasonable as well as genuine.

IP was acquired for nothing and resold for $7.5 million,
a sum not supported by realistic or soundly researched
projections.

But most telling, the member did not disclose his economic
interest as a vendor of the $7.5 million.

Orders of the Tribunal

(a) Pursuant to Rule 21.31 (a) of the Rules of the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand,
the disciplinary tribunal ordered that the name of
Leon Paul Hendren be removed from the Institute’s
Register of Members.

(b) Pursuant to Rule 21.33 of the Rules of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, the
disciplinary tribunal ordered that Leon Paul
Hendren pay to the institute the sum of $17,196.85
(inclusive of GST) in respect of the costs and
expenses of the hearing before the disciplinary
tribunal and the investigation by the professional
conduct committee.

(c) Pursuant to Rule 21.52 (b) of the Rules of the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand,
the disciplinary tribunal ordered that the briefs of
evidence and the financial details of the complainants
be suppressed.

In accordance with Rule 21.35 of the Rules of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, the disciplinary
tribunal directed that the decision of the tribunal be published
in the Chartered Accountants Journal, the New Zealand
Gazette and the Christchurch Press with mention of the
member’s name and locality.

Right of Appeal

Pursuant to Rule 21.41 of the Rules of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of New Zealand which were in force
at the time of the original notice of complaint, the member
may, not later than 14 days after the notification of this
tribunal to the member of the exercise of its powers, appeal
in writing to the appeals council of the institute against the
decision.

No decision other than the direction as to publicity shall
take effect while the member remains entitled to appeal or
while any such appeal by the member awaits determination
by the appeals council.

Dated this 10th day of July 2006.

R. J. O. HOARE, Tribunal Chairman.

gn4924

Departmental Notices

Agriculture and Forestry

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997

Notice of Application to Register a Trade Name Product (Notice No. 1541)

Pursuant to section 14 (1) of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, the Director-General of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry hereby gives notice that the following application has been made to register a trade name
product under section 9 (1) of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997: