The discussions between Harris, Jean Hubbard and her lawyers from Russell McVeagh will finally get underway in Timaru today.
But it is obvious Harris will be facing a conundrum.
When the Government slapped Allan and Jean Hubbard - alongside Aorangi Securities and other entities - into statutory management in June 2010, Commerce Minister Simon Power said it followed a process that took a number of weeks and involved the Companies Office and Mr Hubbard.
"The main objectives are to prevent fraud and reckless company management, to protect investors and to enable the orderly administration of a company's affairs." Power noted then that the commission considered other remedies.
"But given the circumstances of this case, that Mr and Mrs Hubbard are involved in the affairs of the entities as depositors, managers and borrowers, and that loans to related parties have not been properly secured and documented, it was felt statutory management was the only option.
"The commission was satisfied on reasonable grounds that Mr and Mrs Hubbard are so closely connected with the business and affairs of the entities that the statutory managers would be unable to effectively exercise the powers conferred by the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 unless they are also declared subject to statutory management."
The commission's reasoning was due to be tested in the High Court at Timaru on September 7. The judicial challenge to the statutory management was adjourned after Allan Hubbard's death, but it appears obvious that Russell McVeagh would have challenged the basis on which the commission arrived at its decision.
Prior to his death, Allan Hubbard - who had written a supporting affidavit for the judicial review application - had fumed over the rapidity with which the commission decided to put him and his wife into statutory management.
At issue was his contention that Harris' officials had misunderstood a series of transactions that said he was undertaking to strengthen Aorangi Securities' balance sheet.
Subsequent reports by statutory managers Grant Thornton lend some weight to the contention that Hubbard had been prepared to subordinate particular assets to the investors in Aorangi Securities. But at the time of his death there was still considerable paperwork to be done to give effect to those intentions.
Hubbard had told confidants that his lawyers' investigations had revealed that the commission made its decision in quick smart time.
Apparently one member, Annabel Cotton, was "on the road" during the meeting. Cotton - with another member of the four-person commission panel - took part in the meeting by phone.
If the statutory management was purely aimed at the Hubbard companies, the commission's practice may well have passed muster.
But it does seem a rather punitive move when the two people who were to be slapped in a financial straitjacket were not able to put up alternatives.
Surely there should have a role for natural justice here.
You could expect Russell McVeagh to apply more legalistic reasonings to bolster the review application. For instance, the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 (CIMA) has rarely been used against natural persons.
Russell McVeagh would no doubt argue that natural justice obligations were overridden in the haste to put the Hubbards into their financial straitjacket. And in any case, why couldn't other avenues be applied, such as a simple assets freeze?
This, after all, was the mechanism the Securities Commission used to tie up many of Mark Hotchin's New Zealand assets while it investigated Hanover Finance.
But, unlike the position the FMA has found itself in where it has to keep a High Court judge informed on progress on its investigation into Hotchin's companies, there is no judicial safeguard applying to the Hubbards' predicament.
In Harris' case, his decision to recommend statutory management to the commission in the Hubbard affair was based on an internal report by his investigators.
The fact that the Serious Fraud Office did file fraud charges against Allan Hubbard does underscore the overall concerns. (Those charges were stayed after the Timaru financier's death).
But the overall situation is Mickey Mouse.
Harris will have to be very careful indeed that he does not pressure Jean Hubbard to make good on Allan Hubbard's intentions as a quid pro quo for lifting the statutory management.
Already he is reported as having said that under the statutory management legislation, the main focus and his "first priority, must be the interests of the investors as creditors".
In Jean Hubbard's case, her own rights - and those of the Hubbard estate - should also be considered.
The other key question is why Harris is still dealing with these issues in any event. Surely the Financial Markets Authority should now be in the box seat when it comes to statutory managements. The FMA did after all take over such powers from the Securities Commission.
As an addendum, it seems much of Harris' empire - including a great deal of the Registrar of Companies' enforcement powers - still sits in the MED. This makes Simon Power's grand plan to centralise supervisory and enforcement functions for New Zealand's key markets within the FMA look a bit of a joke.
