[Site Policy] 16/01/2016 : Publication of Legal Intimidation

Received 16/01/206 from Kim Hogan, Forrest Capital (iPhone screen snapshot). This information is published per site policy.

20160116 Message from Kim Hogan


Electronic harassment is an important focus area of law reform in Australia. Australian state and territory criminal laws criminalise harassment through electronic communication, although offences vary considerably depending on the jurisdiction. For example, in Victoria, the definition of stalking extends to a course of conduct committed via ‘electronic communications’ (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s21A(2)(b)). The Commonwealth Criminal Code provides for an offence of ‘using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (Criminal Code (Cth) s474.17) and ‘using a carriage service to make a threat’ (s474.15) These would capture conduct amounting to harassment, for example, via the internet, including social media, and telephone (and the use of SMS).


13 thoughts on “[Site Policy] 16/01/2016 : Publication of Legal Intimidation

    • 5 hour time difference between AEST and US Pacific time – I was in California at the time. Yes, I was very unhappy to receive this message from someone I have never given my telephone number to.


  1. Well, I always thought Forest were an interesting bunch of dudes. Now we have confirmation.

    Keep up the good work Chris, and don’t let the bastard’s get you down.

    You clearly hit a nerve.


  2. Wow! Wow! And wow.

    I just don’t know where to start. What does this say about Mr Hogan? About Forrest? About the quality of the companies they are associated with? About Western Australian listed biotechs? About Australian biotech in general?

    Mr Hogan’s text you is hard to misinterpret and not even within cooee of being within the bounds of acceptable.

    I can understand him wanting to call you a dickhead or worse. You play hard and people can be forgiven for letting their emotions get the best of them in those situations. But, there is a line and Mr Hogan’s text flies over it.

    It also begs the question as to whether I or any of the other analysts can expect similar treatment if we write something negative about a company Mr Hogan has an interest in? You would have to assume so and that creates a problem for all of us. Even if we find can something positive to say about a company he or Forrest is/has been associated with, at best, we will need to balance the positive point against 10 negative points (I know you’re all thinking, that won’t be hard), so that we don’t appear as if we have been intimidated.


  3. Now, let me see……….
    As a “mum and dad” investor”, I’m thinking of making an investment into the bioscience area and I google “Forrest Investments”. Once I find the name ” Kim Hogan”, guess what?
    They couldn’t sell me glass of water in the desert.
    Well done Kim, nothing a spot in W.A. property development won’t fix, eh?


  4. What does Kim want ‘to do’ exactly? I wonder if he will still be interested in you in 10 years 🙂

    On a serious note, behaviour like this from someone with 25 years experience in the finance industry should be called out. It’s completely unnacceptable. Dont be intimidated Chris…


    • Dear “A” – I agree. That’s why I decided to call it out. When you get a message like that and you are on the other side of the world, it’s enough to make you want to get on a plane and make sure there aren’t any weirdos loitering around your house. Thanks for reading.


  5. Mr Hogan is clearly threatening to use legal expense as a form of harassment…in order to obtain your home address-as another implied threat to your privacy or security. A “two-fer” if you will.
    Sure he might be mad generally. It’s been a tough week or so on world markets. And at 0230 maybe he was in the grip-of-the-grape, rolled over in bed and somehow bum-texted Christopher Skase (seems appropriate)?
    Otherwise he’s certainly not the sharpest nail in the bag…texting his threat(s). Magistrates also take a VERY dim view of costs of legal processes use as (stated) threats. Regardless, what Hogan’s implying here is WAY out of bounds.
    Perhaps the Australian biotech community could develop a product to treat Mr. Hogan’s condition?
    A “dill-chill-pill”…..if you will.


  6. Kim’s assuming he’ll still be in the AU public biotech space in 10 years. Suspect, given their business model similarities to EG Capital, they’ll suffer a similar fate…
    More generally, keep up the good work Chris, greatly appreciate your site as a source of interesting and informed analysis – one of v few sources in this Australian market


  7. Pingback: Competing for Capital? Absolutely. | The Long Tail

Say something useful (or at least interesting)...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s