The Star-Advertiser did a good job reporting on this week’s surprise announcement that a startup company plans to make a bid for Hawaiian Electric Industries.

Today’s stories by Rob Perez, who gathered reactions to the idea, and Andrew Gomes, who provides an excellent bit of background on Roald Marth, the key figure, are both excellent. I appreciated their quick work in pulling together a skeptical view of the announcement.

So far, a real bid from this group seems unlikely.

Although Marth refers to himself as a venture capitalist, I spent a long time online yesterday in a fruitless search for anything to confirm the self-description. A search of various investment reports filed with the SEC over the past four years didn’t turn up any mention of Marth.

I also did a quick check of local real estate records and failed to find any property in Hawaii owned in his name.

He is listed as officer of two companies incorporated in Delaware, including Kuokoa Inc, the company involved in the proposed takeover, which was registered to do business in Hawaii on September 23, 2010, and Nuro Inc., which was registered on March 10, 2010.

Both companies list their principle business address as a residential apartment in the high-priced Hokua at 1288 Ala Moana Condominium. The apartment is owned by a Honolulu neurosurgeon and orthodontist, real estate records show.

Marth made news in November HECO engineer Mina Brinkopf, described as Marth’s girlfriend, displayed her $175,000 Tesla electric roadster, reportedly a gift from him.

One has to wonder how HEI and HECO feel about their employee’s role somewhere in the middle of this conceptual deal.

There also appear to be ethics questions related to the role of Ted Peck, until yesterday serving as state energy administrator in the Strategic Industries Division of DBEDT.

According to a state press release when Peck was appointed in October 2008:

Peck has been with the State’s energy office for the last year, and has had a leadership role in numerous initiatives including energy planning, the shaping of the state’s approach to renewable energy permitting and facilitation, the state hydrogen program, the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative partnership between the state and U.S. Department of Energy, the greenhouse gas emission reduction task force, and a number of other strategic initiatives.

There were obvious potential conflicts between Peck’s role as state energy administrator and his personal interest in a position with Marth’s new company, set up to operate in exactly the same area.

Several provisions of state ethics law might apply.

Probably most important, under the circumstances, are post-employment restrictions for state employees like Peck.

§84-18 Restrictions on post employment. (a) No former legislator or employee shall disclose any information which by law or practice is not available to the public and which the former legislator or employee acquired in the course of the former legislator’s or employee’s official duties or use the information for the former legislator’s or employee’s personal gain or the benefit of anyone….

(c) No former employee, within twelve months after termination of the former employee’s employment, shall represent any person or business for a fee or other consideration, on matters in which the former employee participated as an employee or on matters involving official action by the particular state agency or subdivision thereof with which the former employee had actually served.

This would certainly appear to limit Peck’s potential actions as a principal employee of Marth’s company.

There are also questions of potential conflicts of interest while Peck was both serving as state energy administrator and apparently negotiating his own future employment. However, it appears those conflict of interest provisions don’t reach beyond the term of his employment, except under certain circumstances.

Maybe former Ethics Commission director Dan Mollway will have some general comments about how state law might apply to situations like this.

In terms of remedies, the ethics law provides:

§84-19 Violation. (a) Any favorable state action obtained in violation of the code of ethics for legislators or employees and former employees is voidable in the same manner as voidable contracts as provided for under section 84-16; and the State by the attorney general may pursue all legal and equitable remedies available to it.

(b) The State by the attorney general may recover any fee, compensation, gift, or profit received by any person as a result of a violation of the code of ethics by a legislator or employee or former legislator or employee. Action to recover under this subsection shall be brought within one year of a determination of such violation.