You are using an older browser version. Please use a supported version for the best MSN experience.

Warminger manipulated stock market twice

NZ Newswire logoNZ Newswire 3/03/2017 Sophie Boot

Former Milford Asset Management portfolio manager Mark Warminger manipulated the New Zealand stock market in two trades in 2014, but there wasn't enough evidence for the remaining eight instances argued by the Financial Markets Authority, the High Court has found.

The trial was brought by the FMA, which claimed Warminger breached the Securities Markets Act by placing small trades on market in one direction, followed by large off-market trades in the opposite direction in order to set the price rather than for a genuine purpose.

Chief High Court Judge Geoffrey Venning said he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Warminger manipulated the market in relation to Fisher & Paykel Healthcare on May 27, 2014, and A2 Milk Co on July 9, 2014, but the FMA had failed to prove the remaining eight claims, which included two other trades of A2 in January and August 2014.

The FMA also failed in its claims that Warminger manipulated the market in shares of Restaurant Brands, Sky Network Television, Xero, Wynyard Group and Skellerup Holdings over 2014.

"There is a common theme to the defence case on this and other transactions to the effect of 'why would Mr Warminger engage in such behaviour and place his career at risk for either a very limited or even nil financial benefit to himself?'," the judge said in his verdict.

"The FMA does not have to prove a motive. But Mr Warminger's evidence, both in what he said and also how he answered questions as well as the evidence of Mr (Brian) Gaynor provides some insight. Mr Warminger is a goal-driven individual. He is motivated by personal performance, the performance of the funds under his management and the targets he has to meet.

"Mr Warminger has been very successful in a performance-driven industry. He was the INFINZ fund manager of the year for three years preceding 2014. He was used to success and took pride in being on the winning side of a deal. His personality provides some explanation why he would engage in such activity," Justice Venning said.

The judge has asked the lawyers to file a joint memorandum about the financial penalty the court should impose. The maximum penalty for a breach of the law is the greater of the consideration for the transaction, three times the amount of gain made or loss avoided, or $1 million.

image beaconimage beaconimage beacon